Resolution of the European Committee of the Regions on the 2020 Annual Regional and Local Barometer – Local and regional authorities facing COVID-19 and building the recovery

(2020/C 440/01)

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS (CoR),

—	having regard to its report: ‘2020 Annual Regional and Local Barometer’, based on an inclusive, factual and evidence-driven approach, involving multiple partners and institutions;

—

whereas the report’s purpose is to reflect on the regional and local dimension of the State of the Union, to provide political decision-makers at European, national, regional and local level with evidence on the most pressing challenges for the year ahead, and to offer key recommendations to drive Europe’s political responses. These recommendations should allow for open and inclusive debates at all levels in order to explain the choices to be made and increase the legitimacy of the decisions to be taken;

—	whereas local and regional authorities are at the frontline of crisis management, being responsible for critical aspects of containment measures, health care, social services and economic development, as these responsibilities are shared among different levels of governance in the Member States;

—	whereas the impact of the COVID-19 crisis is highly diverse, with a strong territorial dimension that has important consequences for crisis management and policy responses;

—	whereas subnational governments are playing a major role in managing the COVID-19 crisis both through their own policy decisions and actions, and through the implementation of policies decided at other levels of governance;

1.

highlights the importance of multilevel governance and the need for coordination in emergency healthcare management and cross-border health cooperation to ensure a coherent and efficient response to future crises;

2.

stresses that according to a public opinion survey carried out in September 2020 on behalf of the CoR on the views of EU citizens on the coronavirus crisis and the role of LRAs, the latter remain the most trusted level of governance in the EU (52 %) and also the most trusted level (48 %) to take, now and in the future, the right measures to overcome the economic and social impact of the coronavirus crisis. A clear majority of Europeans (58 %) also thinks that greater influence by regional and local authorities would have a positive impact on the EU’s ability to solve problems, and this is the majority view in all Member States;

3.

stresses that the crisis has resulted in increased expenditure and reduced revenues for local and regional authorities and demands that LRAs receive sufficient resources from central governments and the EU level to boost their healthcare systems now and in the long term. Regional disparities in health systems and bottlenecks in emergency preparedness should be addressed through relevant national authorities. The EU4Health programme, and the RescEU reserve and flexibility measures should complement these efforts;

4.

stresses that the 2020 Annual Regional and Local Barometer demonstrates that the criteria to receive funding should be region-sensitive and based on a comprehensive set of indicators reflecting the different levels of exposure and vulnerability, including on the loss of GDP since the start of the crisis, on the share of risk sectors, reliance on tourism, cross-border and international trade and transport, and on the share of self-employed people and SMEs in the region’s economy;

5.

highlights that the Recovery and Resilience Facility as the heart of the EU recovery plan must not be ‘spatially blind’: subnational governments must be closely involved in the preparation of national plans and frame their own regional and local recovery plans in coherence with the EU and national plans. The European Semester — as the Facility’s governance mechanism — must incorporate a Code of Conduct for the involvement of LRAs, following the principles of partnership and active subsidiarity;

6.

reiterates that SMEs and the most heavily affected sectors such as transport, tourism and the cultural sector need access to a variety of sustainable financial support such as public grants, venture capital and access to credit with favourable repayment conditions over the long term;

7.

reaffirms the need for a swift agreement on the new recovery instrument (and MFF) so that resources can be quickly mobilised to address the negative effects of the crisis, supporting the economy and job creation at local level;

8.

stresses that social, intergenerational and gender inequalities have been dramatically exacerbated by the devastating impact of COVID-19 across Europe, undermining a decade of progress in just six months. Therefore, targeted, ambitious, adequately funded policies balancing economic, social and health priorities must form the basis of European recovery to limit the long-term consequences of this pandemic;

9.

underlines that inhabitants of cities and regions most challenged by climate change, a deteriorated environment and weakened natural ecosystems face a higher risk of exposure to the spreading of pathogens. Insists, therefore, that the European Commission and the Member States use the current crisis as an opportunity to combine the post-pandemic recovery with an accelerated transition to make the European Union climate-neutral by 2050;

10.

urges the EU institutions and Member States to ensure better integration of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) within a renewed territorially-based and reformed European Semester to more effectively link the recovery plan, the Green Deal and the European Pillar of Social Rights;

11.

highlights that the crisis has turned access to up-to-date information technologies and infrastructure into an even more critical resource, and calls for the ‘digital divide’ to be tackled, high connectivity to be achieved for all EU regions and cities — including rural, peripheral, outermost and geographically disadvantaged areas — and for it to be ensured that people from all ages and socioeconomic backgrounds can adapt to the crisis and the changing world of work;

12.

deplores the fact that the new measures to enhance the flexibility and accelerate the use of cohesion policy funding bear the risk of increased centralisation at Member State level; demands therefore that any reallocations of resources and changes to cohesion policy programmes be carried out in line with the principles of subsidiarity partnership and multilevel governance, with LRAs fully involved in decisions on [re]programming investment under REACT-EU. Highlights that flexibility, particularly the suspension of thematic concentration, should remain of a temporary nature, and a return to ordinary rules for cohesion policy programmes should be envisaged as soon as conditions permit;

13.

points out that regions with the highest number of elderly people (i.e. over 65) have been hit particularly hard by the outbreak of COVID-19 and that people from this age group are most at risk of contracting the virus. Therefore underlines the constant need to exchange best practices on how to effectively protect the elderly, including through facilitating their access to telemedicine;

14.

calls on the Commission, in light of the number of support instruments and modifications to existing and future rules on the use of the European Structural and Investment Funds, to ensure that there is sufficient clarity with regard to the interplay between different new mechanisms such as React EU, the Just Transition Fund and the Recovery and Resilience Facility on the one hand, and existing national and EU schemes on the other, to avoid additional complexity and potentially low absorption rates; highlights in this respect that agreeing on large financial envelopes is not enough and that local and regional authorities also need sufficient time to put forward programmes and projects, as for instance for the REACT-EU programme;

15.

notes with concern that the crisis has put the single market under strain, with disruptions to the free movement of people, goods and services, severely impacting SMEs and affecting the lives of all EU citizens in particular in border regions; welcomes the flexibility provided within the State Aid rules and notes that measures must be put in place to ensure the smooth functioning of the single market in future crises;

16.

emphasises that LRAs’ finances are gravely threatened by the crisis, which jeopardises their ability to deliver valuable public services; reiterates that LRAs need new, smarter budgetary rules both nationally and at the European level, and a golden rule on sustainable investment to ensure that public services and local investment be considered as essential towards building more competitive, resilient and sustainable economies and societies;

17.

notes that COVID-19 has led governments — both in the EU and abroad — to enact strict measures affecting citizens’ freedoms, and that a complex balance has had to be found to preserve democracy, the rule of law and trust in institutions while striving to contain the pandemic. These challenging times could be turned into an opportunity to reinforce local democracy and to reflect collectively on Europe’s founding values during the Conference on the Future of Europe;

18.

instructs its President to transmit the 2020 Annual Regional and Local Barometer and the present resolution to the Presidents of the European Parliament, the European Commission and the European Council, as well as to the Heads of State of the 27 EU Member States; and encourages regional and local elected politicians in Europe to disseminate the report to citizens and local media.

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions – Equivalent standards of living as a joint challenge for all levels of government in Europe

(2020/C 440/02)

Rapporteur: Bernd LANGE (DE/EPP), Head of Görlitz District Council

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

1.

expresses its concern about the growing economic, social and territorial inequality within and between EU Member States. Recent developments in Europe have shown that the disparities between places and between people are increasing, in terms of economic development, employment and well-being. These disparities can be seen at all levels, from sub-local to European, and have reached critical proportions. The ongoing debate surrounding areas that have been left behind or ‘forgotten’ clearly shows that a more place-based approach is needed in order to address the development challenges faced by these areas;

2.

points out that the COVID-19 pandemic in the Member States is exacerbating the existing challenges resulting from the crisis in most regions. The economic and social consequences and the resulting prerequisites for recovery vary greatly between regions;

3.

stresses, therefore, that the objective of territorial, economic and social cohesion, as set out in Article 174 TFEU, must continue to be a high priority for the European Union. As well as EU regional policy and the common agricultural policy, all other EU policy areas (e.g. transport, environment, social and energy) must contribute to this cross-cutting objective; this applies in particular to EU measures under the European Green Deal and further digitalisation;

4.

draws attention to the specific circumstances of the outermost regions as recognised in Article 349 TFEU, and underlines the EU’s commitment to developing these regions through specific measures, benefiting those regions and the EU as a whole;

5.

emphasises that in 2017 one third of the EU’s population lived in cities with more than 100 000 inhabitants, one third lived in towns with a population of between 10 000 and 100 000, and one third in small towns and rural communities with fewer than 10 000 inhabitants (1). In her political guidelines (2), the president of the European Commission pointed out that 50 % of Europeans live in rural areas;

6.

notes that in the past European structural policy was primarily concerned with cohesion between regional authorities (Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS) 1 or 2), but that the impact of measures on the lower, local levels was not always sufficiently examined or taken into account;

7.

notes that increased net migration flows from rural to urban areas have been observed in various Member States and regions in recent years (3) and considers that EU policies should contribute to the challenges and opportunities which arise from this;

8.

is concerned that further migration to metropolitan areas creates significant challenges for the respective urban centres in many places, such as a lack of housing, rising rents, overburdening of public infrastructure, and social problems. As a result of depopulation, small and medium-sized towns and municipalities in rural areas and the businesses based there face major challenges. It is harder to maintain public infrastructure and fund public services as there are fewer, increasingly older users needing more services, and businesses often face skills shortages;

9.

refers here to the CoR opinion in preparation on Demographic change: proposals on measuring and tackling its negative effects in EU regions (4) and the CoR opinion on The challenges of metropolitan regions and their position in the future Cohesion Policy post-2020 (5);

10.

notes that the first of the six priorities set out in the Territorial Agenda of the European Union 2020 is to promote polycentric and balanced territorial development (6), and that this objective is also a priority in the draft 2030 Territorial Agenda;

11.

observes that there is currently no cross-cutting approach at EU level to address the factors driving migration and uncontrolled urbanisation or counter-urbanisation by improving standards of living in all regions;

12.

emphasises the importance of UN Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 11, ‘sustainable cities and communities’, which must be applicable for all types of locality;

13.

believes that universally accessible public infrastructure sites, universally available public infrastructure networks and universal public services are a vital prerequisite for high standards of living and sustainable development in all parts of the European Union. Once again, the structural prerequisites vary greatly between and within Member States and even within regions;

14.

believes that measures taken by the European Union should be balanced among support given to densely populated urban areas and rural areas, which have often been considered primarily from an agricultural point of view. Regrets, in this sense, the comparatively low intervention of ESF and ERDF in rural areas (7) (8);

15.

fears that the COVID-19 crisis will make the provision and maintenance of public infrastructure and the delivery of public services even more difficult, especially in smaller, more remote and isolated and financially weaker municipalities and regions, which are likely to be particularly affected by a drop in tax revenues. This could reinforce the opposing trends seen in recent years; underlines that a decrease in public investment in infrastructure and services generally has a more severe impact on particularly vulnerable population groups;

National strategies for balanced territorial development

16.

believes that the policies of the European Union and the Member States should always complement each other. Under no circumstances should they contradict each other or pursue conflicting objectives; highlights therefore that gold-plating by Member States should be avoided when transposing EU directives into national law;

17.

calls on the Member States, therefore, to further develop national cohesion policies and dovetail them with efforts at EU level, in close cooperation with local and regional authorities and in accordance with the partnership principle and multilevel governance;

18.

points out, in this regard, that there are already approaches at national level in various Member States to achieve a balanced structural policy that is intended to benefit all localities. While some Member States are proposing general principles to develop all communities (9), plans for specific types of locality are being drawn up in other parts of the EU (10) (11);

19.

observes that the national strategies mentioned above are not primarily concerned with economic cohesion in terms of economic performance but rather with the establishment of a certain standard with regard to public administration, infrastructure and services, which provide the basis for further socioeconomic development;

20.

notes that decentralised governance is usually mentioned in all national strategies as an essential prerequisite for an area being a good place to live. Local and regional structures are essential to ensure citizen-centred governance and democratic participation;

21.

acknowledges that all the national policies mentioned focus more than EU policy does on smaller units (municipalities, associations of municipalities, small and medium-sized towns, etc.) in rural areas with a view to making these stronger and thereby more attractive. All strategies consider rural areas primarily as places where people live and where there is economic activity, and provide for structural policy measures to develop them;

22.

welcomes in particular the sector-specific approaches that the Member States have adopted in their national strategies. Despite the heterogeneity of local areas, it is clear that the challenges are similar in the various Member States;

23.

notes that digitalisation is a key aspect of all national approaches. Universal digital infrastructure and digital public services make it possible to create and maintain jobs outside urban centres, which could in turn limit the migration of workers to cities. Underlines that an increase in telework, as experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic, could offer workers increased flexibility for choosing their place of residence; stresses in this respect its expectation that the continual digitalisation of many types of work means that the locational advantages of employees being near the workplace will likely play a less important role in many sectors in the long term; stresses that this trend should not compromise the mobility policies, in particular aimed at limiting the environmental impact of commuters’ and business travel;

24.

notes the need to make sure that the areas located furthest away from urban centres and with a lower population density have exactly the same levels of digital connectivity, so as to promote online public services and teleworking as tools for attracting people and talent to these areas;

25.

welcomes the attention paid by all strategies to aspects of services of general interest, in particular provision of health, care and social services, schools and other educational institutions, services to protect older people and integration services; equity has to be the way ahead for providing public services to people, regardless of where they live;

26.

therefore asks the future German, Portuguese and Slovenian presidencies of the EU to support implementation of the Territorial Agenda 2030 by initiating a discussion and exchange of experiences on how the EU’s structural policy and national regional development policies can best be combined so as to reduce regional inequalities and improve living conditions across Europe;

General recommendations for EU policy

27.

calls on the European Commission to take the same approach as national governments and entrench the goal of equivalent living standards at EU level, putting Article 174 and Article 349 TFEU into effect;

28.

emphasises the Member States’ discretionary power with regard to services of general interest. In line with the principle of subsidiarity, a European framework should only complement measures taken at the national, regional or local levels;

29.

calls for a European long-term strategy on territorial development, taking into account interactions between agglomerations, urban areas and rural areas;

30.

calls on the European Commission to not only consider the Member States’ economic development, but also to take into account and recognise efforts made with regard to services of general interest, especially in less densely, or sparsely, populated areas or outermost regions where people are widely dispersed;

31.

believes that creating appropriate structural conditions in all Member States and all local and regional authorities is vital for the sustainable socioeconomic development of the European Union. The Structural Funds can make a significant contribution in this regard, but must not remain the only means of promoting balanced development. All policy areas, including the vision for rural areas announced by the European Commission, should contribute to this cross-cutting objective;

32.

stresses that such an objective would require detailed consideration of the territorial impact of EU measures, at both the pre- and post-legislative stages;

33.

therefore recommends that the ‘urban proofing’ of EU policy measures proposed in the Urban Agenda for the EU be widened to ‘territorial proofing’, i.e. an integrated assessment of their feasibility in more densely (i.e. urban) and more sparsely populated (i.e. rural) areas, taking into account the specific features of those areas, and that it be complemented by a territorial impact assessment. This would ensure that regulatory provisions have a targeted effect and do not further promote uncontrolled urbanisation or counter-urbanisation;

34.

believes that greater attention should be paid to small and medium-sized towns as anchor points in sparsely populated areas. Municipalities supply essential services of general interest and provide the public with critical infrastructure that significantly improves the attractiveness of rural areas;

35.

emphasises that cities still face major challenges as well and therefore need the financial and organisational support of the European Union. The different types of locality must not be played off against each other. The Urban Agenda for the EU and the resulting partnerships are good examples of potential cooperation between the EU and local levels of government;

36.

encourages the European Commission to enhance the systematic gathering of comparable statistical data for the evaluation of the development of rural areas below NUTS 2 level, without increasing red tape for municipal authorities;

37.

advises the chairs of the European Parliament intergroups to fully involve CoR representatives in the work of the intergroups on urban and rural development so as to promote discussions on specific challenges;

38.

notes that any working and expert groups that the EU sets up in future must include a good balance of representatives of authorities at different levels and of various sizes from urban and rural areas. Approaches developed for and by cities are not generally transferable to smaller authorities due to their different organisational and financial situations;

39.

calls for all European Commission directorates-general and the European Parliament committees to fully take into account interactions between urban and rural areas and create coherent EU policies that work for all types of area in a balanced way;

40.

calls for all European Commission directorates-general and the European Parliament committees to better recognise the benefit of institutional and functional cooperation in areas such as planning, mobility, the environment, provision of services of general interest, and public investment. This cooperation will allow economies of scale and strengthen links, as well as territorial, economic and social cohesion, between urban, peri-urban and rural areas which are part of the same functional area or region;

41.

calls for a comprehensive approach at EU level which addresses the challenges for cross-border cooperation of cities, regions and municipalities and amplifies the potential of this cooperation for reducing disparities between different types of settlements;

Recommendations for EU regional policy

42.

believes that EU regional policy should focus primarily on laying the structural foundations for balanced growth in all localities, in pursuit of convergence and development in the regions of the EU. Sustainable and sustained socioeconomic development can only happen in places where the necessary conditions are in place for individuals and businesses. In this respect emphasises the need for stronger incentives for businesses in rural areas;

43.

considers that the goal of equivalent standards of living should also be taken into account in the thematic focus of the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF), as well as the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). The ESIF should provide support for the required local and regional infrastructure and public services in all regions. Removing the EAFRD from the common provisions on the Structural Funds is counterproductive in this sense, since the separation makes coherent, multi-fund support in urban and rural areas unnecessarily difficult;

44.

takes note here of the specific allocation for urban areas under the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), while also pointing out that such an allocation also requires a counterpart on a comparable scale for rural areas. In the long term, it would be more appropriate to provide for a specific allocation for comprehensive provision of services (broadband infrastructure, hospitals or healthcare, transport infrastructure, etc.) that contribute to balanced territorial development and to promoting the resilience of all local and regional authorities. This would promote a basis for individuals and businesses to locate outside of urban centres as well, which would in turn create jobs and reduce the pressure on people to move away to cities;

45.

believes that, in view of the limited economic viability of public services in more sparsely populated areas, Structural Fund support should primarily take the form of grants;

46.

believes that more Structural Fund support must go to introducing and maintaining the technological infrastructure, both telecommunications and digital services, necessary to guarantee equal development between areas. To achieve this, public-private partnerships will be promoted, with the public sector playing a leading role in implementing investment activities for this purpose;

47.

asks the European Commission to address the issue in the upcoming 8th Cohesion Report, which is expected in September 2021;

48.

calls for stronger links between the new Territorial Agenda 2030 of the EU and the new Cohesion Policy 2021-2027 in order to provide Cohesion Policy with a territorial strategic guiding framework to achieve a Green and Just Europe where no territory would lag behind;

Recommendations for other policy areas

49.

believes that EU transport policy rules should also be framed to better ensure balanced human settlement. This includes public transport planning, rail transport and the deployment of ride-sharing services. So far, ride-sharing services have primarily been based in urban areas because the lower population density in rural areas makes them less remunerative there. In the long term, comprehensive provision of appropriate transport services should be considered, by means of public service obligations where necessary;

50.

points out that EU transport rules (particularly those relating to emissions and climate) often present much greater challenges to public transport operators in rural areas than to their counterparts in urban areas. Switching to low-emission technologies is also not currently possible everywhere, due to technical requirements and market availability, particularly in areas that are less densely populated and have mountainous terrain. This is particularly the case for buses, due to higher costs, limited ranges and sometimes also longer charging times. However, EU funding is made available primarily for urban mobility, as higher pollution levels tend to be recorded in cities. To create and maintain efficient public transport everywhere, the rules should either provide for different measures for different types of locality or should provide additional funding for places where financial resources are particularly hard to find (such as rural, remote and outermost regions, and island and mountain areas);

51.

points out that mobile working also played a significant role before the COVID-19 pandemic. Digital government services can also only be offered and used where both providers and users of such services have high-speed broadband connections;

52.

believes that, when rolling out broadband and mobile telecommunications or 5G and 6G, the goal should always be universal availability while complying with European emissions standards. Such work should primarily be carried out by the private sector. In places where for financial reasons fibre optics can be rolled out extensively only with the help of public funding, local and regional authorities should be put in a position where they can provide this in a legally certain and targeted way.

---

(1)  Die Unterschiede bestimmen die Vielfalt in Europa — Ein Atlas ausgewählter Aspekte der räumlichen Strukturen und Entwicklungen [Differences determine diversity in Europe — An atlas of selected aspects of spatial structures and developments], Federal Institute for Research on Building, Urban Affairs and Spatial Development.

(2)  https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/political-guidelines-next-commission_en.pdf

(3)  https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Archive:Statistics_on_rural_areas_in_the_EU#Further_Eurostat_information

(4)  COR-2019-04647-00-00-PAC.

(5)  COR-2019-01896-00-00-AC (OJ C 79, 10.3.2020, p. 8).

(6)  https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/publications/communications/2011/territorial-agenda-of-the-european-union-2020

(7)  ‘Evolution of the Budget Dedicated for Rural Development Policy’, study for the Commission for Natural Resources, Progress Consulting, 2016 (updated 2020).

(8)  ‘EU Cohesion Policy in non-urban areas’, study for the European Parliament’s REGI Committee, EPRC, 2020.

(9)  Final report of the Kommission ‘Gleichwertige Lebensverhältnisse’ (Equal Living Standards Commission), Germany.

(10)  ‘Ruralités: une ambition à partager – 200 propositions pour un agenda rural’ [Rural areas: a shared goal – 200 proposals for a rural agenda], France.

(11)  ‘Masterplan für den ländlichen Raum’ [Master plan for rural areas], Austria.

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions – Implementation and future perspectives for cross-border healthcare

(2020/C 440/03)

Rapporteur: Karsten Uno PETERSEN (DK/PES), Regional Councillor, Region of Southern Denmark Reference document: Outlook opinion

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Introductory comments

1.

observes that cross-border patient mobility is a major policy issue. 34 % of EU citizens cite health as the most important policy topic in their region, an increase of 8 percentage points since 2015 and 10 percentage points since 2012;

2.

emphasises that the local and regional dimension is absolutely key to cross-border healthcare. For a variety of reasons, many people living close to a border seek treatment in the neighbouring country. Border regions make up 40 % of the EU’s territory, with more than one in three Europeans living in such a region. Local and regional authorities provide a link between all the stakeholders involved (national, regional and local actors, hospitals, GPs, pharmacies, members of the public, etc.);

3.

is of the view that cross-border patient mobility poses a series of questions — regarding, amongst other things, access to information on treatment abroad, continuity of care, exchange of information between healthcare professionals on either side of the border, disparities in healthcare and the types of care or treatment provided for a given medical indication, the ability of the healthcare system to prioritise and provide care on under the same conditions, and logistical and administrative challenges — that have an impact on the number of people wishing to make use of the opportunities for obtaining healthcare in another EU country under the cross-border healthcare directive;

4.

expresses its satisfaction with the budget of the new EU4Health programme, which will make it possible to strengthen health security and increase preparedness for future health crises. It will be a robust stand-alone programme with increased funding in the next multiannual financial framework (MFF) (2021-2027), in order to properly address the challenges identified in the Commission’s programme for the current mandate, in particular regarding the fight against cancer, the prevention, early detection and management of chronic and rare diseases, anti-microbial resistance, access to affordable medicine and serious health threats (such as coronavirus epidemics), and to deliver an ambitious health policy with a focus on cross-border cooperation;

5.

welcomes the fact that all Member States completed the transposition of the directive; remains concerned however about the compliance check and a sheer number of issues detected to date by the Commission; understands that the directive touches upon a large number of laws pertaining to healthcare organisation and governance, reimbursement mechanisms, information channels, patients’ rights and entitlements and professional liability;

6.

in the light of the foregoing, welcomes the fact that the Commission’s first vice-president, Frans Timmermans, has asked the CoR, in a letter addressed to its president, to draw up an outlook opinion on the implementation of the directive on cross-border healthcare, which could help to improve enforcement and strengthen patient rights;

7.

wishes to make it clear that this must be done in such a way as to ensure that the organisation, management, funding and delivery of healthcare services remain the prerogative of the EU Member States. Furthermore, the implementation of the directive should be seen in the light of the overall tasks to be undertaken by the competent health authorities in people’s best interests;

8.

thanks all the RegHubs (1) and the stakeholders they consulted for their careful consideration of the survey and their insightful replies that informed this opinion;

COVID-19

9.

believes that the COVID-19 crisis has made it clear that Europe needs more cooperation in the field of health;

10.

echoes the call of the CoR president to set up a European Union Health Emergency Mechanism, closely linked to or integrated into existing EU structures for crisis management (i.e. the EU Solidarity Fund and the European Centre for Disease Control and Prevention) to better prepare the Union for any future pandemic crisis and to ‘support regional and local leaders to provide health services and materials to hospitals and schools, hire medical staff, buy medical devices and support intensive care services’;

11.

also draws attention to Article 10 of the directive, on mutual assistance and cooperation, enabling Member States to ‘render mutual assistance’ and ‘facilitate cooperation in cross-border healthcare provision at regional and local level in border regions’ and is convinced that Member States should explore this opportunity more creatively to address pandemic situations as well;

12.

recalls that, according to article 222 of TFEU, the Union and its Member States shall act jointly in a spirit of solidarity;

13.

finds reassuring the solidarity shown in the hour of need when Member States took over patients from their overburdened neighbours to relieve the pressure of their intensive care capacities; firmly believes that this could be formalised in the future through a request for assistance under the directive;

14.

recommends setting up ‘health corridors’ (2) between the border regions, making it possible for patients and health professionals to continue moving across the border during the lockdown to guarantee access to and provision of care;

15.

points to digital cross-border solutions enabling e.g. imaging and remote analysis of samples (such as lung x-rays transferred for assessment abroad) as an example of a cost-effective and practical way to cooperate when there is a surge;

Increased patient mobility is not an end in itself

16.

agrees with the European Parliament that only a tiny fraction of EU citizens make use of the opportunities offered by the directive, and that most patient mobility occurs across shared borders;

17.

refers, in this respect, to the Commission’s report, which concludes that cross-border patient flows display a stable pattern, with people primarily choosing cross-border healthcare for reasons of geographical or cultural proximity;

18.

draws attention to the Commission’s conclusion that patient mobility and its financial implications within the EU as a whole remain relatively low, and that the cross-border healthcare directive has not had significant budgetary consequences for the sustainability of health systems;

19.

underscores that cross-border healthcare may be appropriate for certain groups of patients affected by rare diseases or for reasons of geographical proximity, especially in border regions;

20.

welcomes the positive impact that the directive seems to be having on cross-border patient mobility, with figures showing a slight upwards trend since 2015. The number of prior authorisations has likewise been steadily increasing over the past few years, with more than twice as many requests being made and authorised in 2017 as in 2015 across the Member States;

21.

points out that the regulations and the directive are not the only routes by which care may be provided in another Member State, as several of them have adopted bilateral and multilateral parallel procedures to address the particular needs of care in their border regions (BE, DK, SE, DE, CZ, EE, LU, HU, NL, PT, RO, FI and LT). Often predating the directive, these agreements generate significant flows of patients that are not captured in European statistics;

22.

notes that the purpose of the cross-border healthcare directive is not to achieve the highest possible number of patients using care abroad; the arrangements offered by the directive have been designed to complement the basket of care services and products available regionally or nationally and to clarify the rights of European patients willing to access healthcare or treatment in another EU/EEA country; the number of users therefore cannot be interpreted as either a success or a failure of the legislation;

23.

emphasises in this connection that any increase in cross-border patient mobility must be based on individual patient circumstances, and is not an end in itself;

Readily accessible information on health care under the terms of the directive

24.

like the European Parliament, maintains that, if the directive is to be implemented successfully, it is crucial for patients, healthcare professionals and other stakeholders to be properly informed of the opportunities it affords for cross-border treatment;

25.

therefore stresses that people must have easy access to information on the conditions for obtaining treatment in other Member States under the directive, so that they can make an informed choice if they are considering treatment abroad;

26.

points out that since there are significant differences in how individual countries organise their health systems, including regional and local differences in some countries, health authorities should make sure that adequate arrangements are in place to provide the public with access to appropriate information;

27.

draws attention to the fact that National Contact Points (NCPs) can have regional antennas or be integrated into the regional health systems’ websites or hosted on regional health insurers webpages; while these solutions may not necessarily increase the overall visibility of the NCPs, they may be more successful in providing citizens with information;

28.

recommends that the Commission provide examples of good practice from different countries and from regional and local authorities on how best to disseminate information, so that the health authorities in the Member States can learn from the experience of health systems similar to their own;

29.

stresses that, even if the Member States step up their efforts to make information available, there will still be major differences in patient mobility depending on the organisation of individual health systems and the services they deliver. The Commission’s report makes this clear. The main reasons why patients decide to seek cross-border treatment are swifter access to good quality care, cultural affinities and not least the possibility of saving money on treatment with a substantial proportion of own funding, such as dental treatment;

Additional administrative costs incurred for treatment abroad

30.

notes that by far the major part of Member States’ health budgets is spent on the domestic market. The Commission calculates that, under the directive, the cost of cross-border healthcare across the EU as a whole amounts to only 0,004 % of the total annual health budget of the EU countries;

31.

reiterates that only a tiny fraction of patients make use of treatment in another EU country under the directive. According to the most recent estimate by the European Court of Auditors, the number of reimbursement requests is in the region of 214 000 per annum, corresponding to approximately 0,04 % of the EU’s population. The vast majority of requests (over 210 000) are for reimbursement for treatment that does not require prior authorisation;

32.

notes that reimbursement for out-patient services, which do not require prior authorisation (for example, dental care), is relatively low from a financial point of view in comparison with the additional information and administrative costs to health authorities incurred by implementing the directive;

33.

stresses that in endeavouring to comply with all aspects of the directive and make it as straightforward as possible for people to seek treatment in another EU country, the Member State health authorities must also take into account the fact that by far the majority of EU citizens opt for healthcare that is delivered relatively close to their home or family. The organisation, quality and capacity of the Member States’ healthcare services must in principle, therefore, aim to enable people to be treated as close as possible to their place of residence or family;

34.

notes that Member States’ spending on treatment in other EU countries is not just a matter of reimbursement. Administrative and information costs are also linked to treatment — money that could otherwise be spent on improving treatment in the Member States’ own health systems. When implementing the directive, the national health authorities should therefore take care to ensure that the very small proportion of patients wishing to receive treatment in another EU country does not place a disproportionate burden on resources in their own health systems;

Appropriate use of prior authorisation

35.

takes note of the fact that Member States’ use of prior authorisation for hospitalisation or highly specialised medical treatment in another country has been identified as a barrier to cross-border patient mobility;

36.

observes in this regard that, according to the Commission report, the impact on national health budgets of patients seeking access to cross-border healthcare is marginal, something that applies to all countries regardless of whether or not they have made provision for prior authorisation;

37.

notes that the use of prior authorisation is deemed necessary by the majority of RegHubs (63 %) to ensure access to quality healthcare, as well as being key to avoid wasting resources (48 %) and to controlling costs at the regional level (44 %);

38.

points out that recourse to the directive’s prior authorisation rules also offers financial certainty for patients, because before they receive treatment in another country their State of insurance guarantees that it will cover the cost of the treatment under the directive;

39.

calls on the Member States to make prior authorisation as swift as possible so as not to delay treatment unnecessarily, while providing a realistic assessment of the estimated cost of the planned intervention;

40.

highlights the much less-used mechanism of prior notification (Article 9(5) of the directive) found by the RegHubs to be a useful tool to provide patients with clarity and to support authorities in complying with their obligations, and invites the Member States to make more ample use of this voluntary arrangement;

41.

draws attention to the mechanism of financial compensation, which Member States may implement in connection with prior authorisation, to introduce direct billing between competent institutions thus replacing upfront payment and reimbursement to patients (Article 9(5)) as a means to reduce the burden on patients and open up the possibility of seeking treatment abroad for less affluent societal groups;

42.

following on from the above, recommends regarding the further implementation of the directive that recourse to the system of prior authorisation still be possible where the authorities in the Member States consider it necessary;

Further cooperation on the implementation of the directive

43.

invites DG SANTE, in cooperation with the other relevant directorates-general, to follow up on this evaluation of the implementation of the Patient Mobility Directive and to collect, analyse and publish examples of cross-border healthcare activities and problems encountered by participating authorities;

44.

requests adequate and long-term EU funding in the next programming period, especially but not exclusively through Interreg, including for the implementation of cross-border studies/projects aimed at removing specific barriers and at smooth cooperation;

45.

notes that, whilst it does not specifically refer to the directive, the Memorandum of Understanding between the CoR and WHO nevertheless commits the CoR to promoting access to healthcare, health promotion and knowledge sharing, all of which are essential aspects of the directive;

46.

invites the Commission to engage in a regular dialogue with the European Committee of the Regions, including the NAT commission and the Interregional Group on Health, on challenges and solutions with a view to improving the implementation of the directive on cross-border healthcare;

47.

expresses its ongoing support for this much-needed European collaboration and stands ready to further advise and inform on best practice examples from the regions;

48.

reiterates that diseases know no borders and that European health emergency solidarity should never stop at administrative or legal borders;

49.

expects the forthcoming third implementation report from the European Commission to fully reflect the considerations of the European Committee of the Regions, as expressed in this opinion.

---

(1)  In November 2019, the European Committee of the Regions launched a consultation through its Network of Regional Hubs to investigate the implementation of the directive at territorial level. 27 regional hubs, representing 18 European countries, participated in the survey.

(2)  France has set up such a ‘health corridor’ at the FR-ES border to enable the continuity of care in the Hospital of Cerdanya, whereas Luxembourg has looked into a specific derogation for the French healthcare workforce to assign them a special ‘settled’ status and keep them coming to work in the Grand Duchy.

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions – An EU Health Emergency Mechanism

(2020/C 440/04)

Rapporteur: Birgitta SACRÉDEUS (SE/EPP), Member of Dalarna County Council

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

General observations

1.

notes that the COVID-19 outbreak that has hit Europe and the rest of the world in 2020 has not only led to very high rates of sickness and death, but has also had major economic and social consequences of which nobody yet has a full overview. The rapid spread of the virus has put both health and social care and public health structures under increased pressure and generated an extremely high workload for health and care workers, while at the same time preparations also need to be made for further waves;

2.

points out that the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted different parts of Europe to different extents, with significant variations not only between countries but also between regions, municipalities, neighbourhoods and age groups, but that people with underlying conditions and those already in fragile health, and living under inadequate socioeconomic conditions, have consistently been hit harder than others;

3.

notes that, in the fight against COVID-19, and in order to safeguard and guarantee public health, the Member States have taken measures that restrict individuals’ freedom of movement to an extent that would have been unthinkable under normal circumstances;

4.

takes the view that the COVID-19 pandemic clearly demonstrates the importance of skilled, highly-trained staff and well-funded, well-equipped and robust healthcare systems with the capacity to adapt to a new public health and care situation quickly and, if need be, both to strengthen primary and outpatient care and to increase the capacity of hospitals’ general wards and intensive care units;

5.

points out that in many countries the treatment of patients with other diagnoses and medical needs has been postponed, building up a ‘healthcare backlog’ that will take a long time to catch up on. Many of those whom COVID-19 hit particularly badly now need rehabilitation, and there are also strong indications that the need for care and treatment of mental health issues has increased in the wake of the pandemic, both in the population in general and among health and care workers. Healthcare, including public health, primary and outpatient care, will therefore need more resources for a long time yet;

6.

notes that the EU institutions have actively supported the Member States in their fight against COVID-19, but that cooperation between Member States ceased at an early stage, with for instance national borders closing to medical supplies, just when the need for European cooperation, leadership and engagement was higher than usual;

7.

recalls that, according to Article 222 TFEU, the Union and its Members States shall act jointly in a spirit of solidarity;

8.

stresses that, while the EU has an important role to play in efforts to improve public health, prevent disease and eliminate health risks, it is fundamentally the responsibility of the Member States themselves to decide how to organise, finance and design their public health, healthcare and social services;

9.

is convinced that Europe’s systems of universal healthcare, funded on the basis of solidarity, are a huge asset in the fight against COVID-19;

General lessons

10.

considers that there are many important lessons to be learned from the fight against COVID-19 that can be applied both to ongoing work on this global crisis and to other crisis situations;

11.

draws attention to the fact that many Member States have opted to give local and regional authorities primary responsibility for health, care and public health. Even in countries with national health systems, responsibility for social services and social care often lies at local level. Local and regional authorities therefore play a very important role in the fight against COVID-19;

12.

stresses that it is important for the EU institutions and authorities, as well as the Member States, to ensure that the single market is maintained and continues to operate in crisis situations, that the procurement and transport of medicines, medical devices, personal protective equipment and other goods and services are not hampered, and that health and care workers and other key groups are not prevented from commuting across national borders;

13.

highlights the importance of quality-assured data collection, high-quality research and reliable information sources, in order to ensure that authorities can take well-founded decisions and that businesses, organisations and individuals can act responsibly to prevent disease;

14.

highlights the importance of mutual assistance and cooperation in cross-border healthcare, including the transport of patients in need to hospitals in neighbouring countries with free capacity, and the transfer of medical professionals and other forms of cross-border cooperation to alleviate the pressure on health systems in the worst affected EU regions;

15.

for this reason, insists on the need for the Member States to agree on a common statistical protocol to allow for comparability of the data on the impact of the COVID-19 crisis and future pandemics. This protocol, to be developed under the joint authority of the ECDC and Eurostat, could rely on data provided at NUTS 2 level to facilitate a policy response integrating the use of European Structural and Investment Funds;

16.

draws attention to the digital solutions in fields including medical information, medical consultations and contact tracing that have been developed or have made further progress in the wake of the COVID-19 outbreak; the identification of virus carriers does, however, raise legitimate questions regarding privacy and data security, not least in cross-border situations. The pandemic has also highlighted the need for the digital cross-border exchange of patient data when patients receive healthcare in another Member State;

17.

stresses the importance both of global cooperation with the World Health Organization (WHO), among others, to combat COVID-19 and other serious threats to health, and of cooperation with businesses and voluntary organisations, families, neighbours and friends in local and regional crisis management;

18.

highlights the need to find a better way to protect older and vulnerable people — both those in special accommodation and those living in their own homes — against COVID-19 and other infectious diseases; in this regard, stresses the importance of health and social care policies that strengthen local primary care systems, with a focus on prevention;

An EU health emergency mechanism

19.

welcomes the steps that the Commission has already taken to reduce the burden on national, regional and local authorities in their efforts to address the COVID-19 crisis, takes note of the comprehensive recovery plan for Europe presented on 27 May 2020, and takes a positive view of the agreement to use all available funds in this year’s EU budget to help meet the needs of European health systems;

20.

notes that Decision No 1082/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on serious cross-border threats to health (1) has laid crucial foundations for the EU’s emergency preparedness and crisis response, but that in the light of the ongoing health crisis, that there is a need to further develop the EU’s emergency and disaster response capacities;

21.

therefore suggests that, in compliance with the subsidiarity principle and the fact that the Member States have primary responsibility for healthcare, public health and civil protection, an ‘EU health emergency mechanism’ should be set up in order to: — coordinate EU action and support to assist national, regional and local healthcare and disaster-preparedness structures to respond effectively to health threats and crisis situations; — ensure effective cooperation and coordination on preparedness and response with competent international organisations such as the WHO; — coordinate European distribution of essential medical equipment; — reinforce the role of health related European Agencies; — improve the supply of essential medical equipment through joint procurement initiatives and monitor the supply chain for essential products; — in cooperation with the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), support Member States in reviewing and updating their pandemic plans, with a focus on also involving local and regional authorities. Member States’ healthcare systems should also undergo ‘stress tests’ analogous to those carried out on financial institutions after the financial crisis, to assess their preparedness for various types of health threat;

22.

takes the view that the future EU health emergency mechanism should also rely on the ‘Emergency Support Instrument’ laid down in Council Regulation (EU) 2016/369 (2);

23.

is convinced that the EU Civil Protection Mechanism — not least its instruments rescEU and the European Medical Corps — needs to be further reinforced if the EU is to be prepared and able to respond rapidly, efficiently and in a coordinated manner to any future emergency, biological or otherwise. However, the EU Civil Protection Mechanism should be assessed in light of the experiences from the COVID-19 pandemic, in order to provide it with the most effective possible organisation and structure;

24.

proposes strengthening the early-warning capacity of the EU Emergency Response Coordination Centre (ERCC) and developing its links to the Health Security Committee and the ECDC so that it can fulfil its coordinating role even more effectively in the future and give tailored support to local operational management;

25.

notes that the COVID-19 crisis has highlighted how vital the ECDC is, and urges the Member States and the Commission to work together to strengthen and develop its role in combating major health scourges. The Committee therefore welcomes the fact that EU health ministers are now discussing strengthening that role;

26.

is in favour of many of the actions proposed by the European Commission in its communication of 15 July 2020 on Short-term EU health preparedness for COVID-19 outbreaks;

27.

in the interests of safeguarding both freedom of movement and public health, welcomes the European Commission’s proposal for a Council recommendation on a coordinated approach to the restriction of free movement in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, published on 4 September 2020;

Procurement and stockpiling of medical supplies

28.

welcomes the fact that, as of April 2020, the joint procurement agreement covers almost 540 million people, including all residents of EU and EEA countries, the United Kingdom and almost all of the candidate and potential candidate countries;

29.

therefore welcomes the proposal from German chancellor Angela Merkel and French president Emmanuel Macron on 18 May 2020 to set up a special task force in the ECDC, as part of a strategy for dealing with health emergencies, which would be asked to work with national health authorities to draw up plans for prevention and response measures for future epidemics;

30.

appreciates the voluntary nature of the agreement but feels that an opt-in should be replaced by an opt-out system, as this would facilitate a fast-lane procedure while guaranteeing freedom of choice to the participating parties;

31.

welcomes the Commission’s proposal firstly to create a new, stand-alone EU4Health programme, as part of the recovery plan for Europe, with a total budget of EUR 9,4 billion, whose purpose would be partly to strengthen health protection and prepare the Union for future health crises, and secondly to boost the EU’s rescEU civil protection mechanism with a EUR 2 billion increase in funding; regrets, however, that the European Council has since lowered its ambitions to EUR 1,7 billion, which will seriously reduce the scope for responding to the negative consequences of the pandemic.. The Committee of the Regions intends to make specific comments about the new health programme in a separate opinion;

32.

takes a positive view of the European procurement and distribution of essential medical supplies to hospitals and other care providers (respirators, ventilators, personal protective equipment, reusable masks, medicines, medical and laboratory equipment and disinfectants), but stresses that hospitals, health centres and care homes in many Member States are run by local and regional authorities that need to be involved in this process, and points out that the joint procurement undertaken in the spring took too long and thus could not fully achieve its purpose;

33.

welcomes the rapid creation of the rescEU stockpile of medical equipment and its swift delivery to the worst affected Member States;

34.

calls on the Member States and the Commission to establish a permanent European Strategic Stockpile (ESS) as the EU’s repository of antibiotics, vaccines, chemical antidotes, antitoxins, and other critical medical supplies, which have been proven to be effective, in order to guarantee the availability of an ‘emergency reserve’ and coordinate prompt distribution and delivery of essential resources across Europe;

35.

welcomes the Commission’s Decision of 3 April 2020 to temporarily exempt medical equipment and personal protective equipment from import duties and VAT. The Commission should consider revising the scope of its Decision so that it includes private companies required to use PPE, and implement the Decision in a way that does not put local EU producers at an economic disadvantage;

36.

points out that the shortages of essential products and medicines, including antibiotics and anaesthetics, previously experienced in many regions have been exacerbated by the current pandemic, and calls for efforts to rapidly acquire key basic substances, increase production of testing kits and other medical devices where there are shortages, and launch the development and production of essential medicines on European soil by promoting research and innovation and creating incentives for manufacturers;

37.

agrees that the EU must be able to develop, buy, transport and distribute testing supplies and protective gear imported from abroad or produced within the EU. With regard to the production of medicines and other medical supplies, the EU and its Member States must reduce their dependency on third countries and work to make medicines more affordable;

38.

firmly believes that it must be possible at all times for protective equipment, such as masks and protective suits, to be quickly and easily supplied on the market. To that end, the necessary conditions should be created at EU level to establish production capacity for protective materials in the Member States, and EU procurement and antitrust rules should be reviewed in light of the pandemic;

39.

points to the need to assess what type of personal protective equipment is suitable for use in what contexts, and not only with regard to controlling COVID-19;

40.

finds it positive that the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) and the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardisation (Cenelec) have agreed to make available a number of European standards for certain medical devices and personal protective equipment, and believes this will help to increase and convert production capacities of EU enterprises to address shortages of supplies;

41.

points to the need for personal protective equipment, especially where it is for the general public, to be recyclable as far as possible;

Vaccines, diagnostics and treatment

42.

stresses the urgent need to develop vaccines against COVID-19, and urges the EU legislator to take account of the Committee’s call to strengthen EU cooperation on the development, production and distribution of vaccines, complementing public and private medical research to combat COVID-19;

43.

welcomes in this context the European Commission’s proposal to increase the budget for the Horizon Europe framework programme for research and innovation to EUR 94,4 billion, and finds it regrettable that the European Council has since proposed reducing that to EUR 80,9 billion;

44.

welcomes the agreements that the European Commission has reached with a number of pharmaceutical companies for the supply of medicines and vaccines if and when one of the companies develops a safe and effective vaccine;

45.

notes with concern that the global efforts to develop a COVID-19 vaccine, diagnosis and treatment could easily turn into a fierce competition that leaves poorer nations defenceless against the disease; expresses its strong support for multilateral cooperation to develop safe and effective vaccines, diagnostics and treatment, and for fair funding and distribution of future vaccines and medicines;

46.

supports the development of a common EU vaccination card and a virtual European register providing information on vaccine stocks and needs to facilitate the voluntary exchange of information on available vaccine resources and shortages of essential vaccines;

47.

calls for more action to counter the dissemination of misinformation about COVID-19, treatments for it and vaccines against it online and through other channels. In this fight against disinformation, the WHO, the EU and its Member States, and local and regional authorities all have important roles to play;

48.

supports the Commission’s efforts to raise more funds for research into COVID-19 vaccines, and expects Horizon Europe to allocate significant resources to support for research and innovation in this area.

---

(1)  OJ L 293, 5.11.2013, p. 1.

(2)  Council Regulation (EU) 2016/369 of 15 March 2016 on the provision of emergency support within the Union (OJ L 70, 16.3.2016, p. 1).

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions – Bio-diverse cities and regions beyond 2020 at the UN CBD COP 15 and in the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030

(2020/C 440/05)

Rapporteur: Roby BIWER (LU/PES), Member of Bettembourg Municipal Council, Luxembourg Reference document: Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 Bringing nature back into our lives COM(2020) 380 final

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

1.

Calls on the international community to make the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP) of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 2021 the Kunming Moment for Biodiversity and a wake-up call to irreversibly bend the curve in the loss of biodiversity and ecosystems;

2.

Alerts people to the fact that since 2018 the state of biodiversity has worsened and most international societal and environmental goals, in particular the Aichi Biodiversity Targets (ABT), have not been met. Global efforts to halt biodiversity decline have failed, as documented by the IPBES 2019 Global Assessment leading to the World Economic Forum 2020, identifying the loss of biodiversity and collapse of ecosystems as one of the top five threats facing the world;

3.

Points out that the main drivers of biodiversity loss are land-use change, direct exploitation of natural resources, and climate change, which have to be addressed by concrete and timely actions.

4.

Emphasises that the total ecological footprint of the EU-27 Member States exceeds more than twice the capacity of ecosystems to produce useful biological material and to act as carbon sinks in the region;

5.

Stresses the increasing evidence of the direct connection between the climate, biodiversity and human health crises and the increased zoonotic risk of pandemics due to advancing global destruction of natural ecosystems;

6.

Highlights that the current state of the biodiversity crisis requires a set of ambitious and easily communicable targets and immediate science-based policy and action on the drivers of biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation that are proportionate to the aim of bending the curve in biodiversity loss;

7.

Calls for policy coherence to align the efforts, objectives and outcomes produced by the different EU policies, including the new Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), the EU Green Deal and the EU’s trade relations and international commitments, namely the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the UN Paris Agreement on Climate Change, the CBD and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Management, in a comprehensive EU Sustainability Strategy with clear objectives and implementation measures;

8.

Highlights the urgency to act as confirmed by the CBD’s 5th Global Biodiversity Outlook and its recommendation to promote local level urban governance and transdisciplinary planning, to promote NBS as well as to adopt integrated approaches to land use and land use change on the local and landscape level as key components of pathways towards bending the curve in biodiversity loss;

9.

Stresses that, despite increasing acknowledgement, a formal recognition of the key role for Subnational Governments, Cities and Other Local Authorities for Biodiversity (SLGs) (1) in bending the curve in biodiversity loss and applying a ‘whole-of-government approach’ in each step and at every level of the biodiversity governance process is still lacking in both the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 and the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (Post-2020 GBF). Such recognition could be achieved in particular through the inclusion of Local and Subnational Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (LBSAPs/SBSAPs) in National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs);

10.

Supports the establishment of the EU’s long-term climate neutrality objective to steer the European project towards irreversible climate neutrality by 2050, based on a 2021-2027 MFF which meets at least the target of 30 % climate related expenditure; and emphasises that the EU’s Climate Law should ensure convergence of measures to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions with EU and global biodiversity objectives; (2)

The Role of Cities and Regions to bend the curve in biodiversity loss

11.

Agrees with the IPBES 2019 report’s conclusion that LRAs, through responsible production and consumption, as well as integrated territorial land use planning and implementation, and nature-based solutions (NBS) and solutions that are based on the protection and sustainable use of natural and primary resources that are sensitive and specific to social, economic and ecological contexts, can make significant contributions to relevant UN Conventions, including the UN 2030 Agenda and Paris Agreement;

12.

Points out that LRAs are a constituent part of national authorities ratifying the CBD, make extensive voluntary contributions and create important partnerships that mobilise the major groups (Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities — IPLCs, youth and women) and relevant sectors (business, culture and civil society organisations);

13.

Emphasises that LRAs, as engines of innovation and of the implementation of integrated spatial and territorial plans and strategies, are an underused resource, also financially, for achieving EU and global biodiversity goals and that their full capabilities can be harnessed by recognising, activating and equipping the key roles of LRAs;

14.

Emphasises that innovative NBS — which are solutions that are inspired and supported by nature, which are cost-effective, simultaneously provide environmental, social and economic benefits and help build resilience — are among the most effective tools for restoring ecosystems and mobilising people’s ability to thrive with nature, as the 2020 Naturvation project report points out (3);

15.

Calls for the exchange of best practices in order to foster the uptake and spread of innovative NBS, and build guidance for all relevant stakeholders;

16.

Draws attention to the interconnectedness of the Sustainable Development Goals, and suggests the integration of biodiversity and climate targets in further policy developments, e.g. by continuously considering the biodiversity of renewable energy infrastructures’ surroundings, in order to reach both biodiversity and climate targets;

17.

Recalls its encouragement to LRAs to establish LBSAPs or SBSAPs, respectively, and engage in international, European and national standardisation to mainstream biodiversity and ecosystems management as well as NBS for increased applicability and impact;

Cities and regions as drivers for implementing the EU’s biodiversity ambitions

18.

Welcomes the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 as an interface for vertical collaboration in addressing the main causes of biodiversity loss and its links to societal challenges such as climate mitigation and adaptation and protection from future pandemics;

19.

Calls for strong cooperation among LRAs for the establishment of ecological corridors, as part of the Trans-European Nature networks, as they are the key for local buy-in;

20.

Stresses the importance of coordinating nature conservation measures and setting targets at local level. The EU should provide funding and information support for cities and regions in order to promote biodiversity, including for conservation projects, nature-based solutions, development of nature data resources, spatial planning that safeguards biodiversity and the strengthening of expertise and resources in cities and regions;

21.

Welcomes the Council's commitment in its conclusions on the preparation of the Post-2020 GBF to increase the application and implementation of NBS in support of biodiversity conservation, ecosystem restoration and sustainable land-use;

22.

Welcomes and supports the ambitious EU-wide commitments, targets and goals of the EU Green Deal and the EU Biodiversity Strategy; highlights the key role of LRAs in their achievement, in particular by establishing Urban Greening Plans by the end of 2021 and emphasises their innovation and integration potential for supporting regional and urban biodiversity, resilient recovery and social cohesion;

23.

Stresses the need for an integrated EU-wide strategy for the goal to plant at least 3 billion additional trees in the EU in full respect of ecological principles to ensure consideration of key functions; reiterates its opinion (4) on the crucial role of forests in both rural and urban areas for biodiversity protection, climate change mitigation, protection against hydrogeological damage, carbon storage, human health and other co-benefits, and calls for increased efforts to protect and restore forests in full respect of ecological principles, significant age, unique ecological characteristics and the highest level of biodiversity;

24.

Welcomes the EU Urban Greening Platform as a capacity development tool for cities and recommends that it be integrated into key initiatives and platforms such as the new EU Green City Accord, NetworkNature, CitiesWithNature and RegionsWithNature. In particular, it supports CitiesWithNature and RegionsWithNature as the official platforms of the Sharm El-Sheikh to Kunming Action Agenda for Nature and People to engage and commit SLGs to showcase their efforts and recognise the value of nature in cities and regions;

25.

Emphasises the LRAs’ key role in managing Natura 2000 sites and requests sufficient logistical, scientific and financial support for full coverage and enforcement by 2025;

26.

Calls on the EU to supply sufficient resources, capacity development and guidance to LRAs to implement climate mitigation and adaptation activities, conservation measures, site management and urban greening plans for implementing ambitious biodiversity action;

27.

Welcomes the goal of putting in place a new European biodiversity governance framework as put forward in the EU Biodiversity Strategy, enabling LRAs and all levels of government, based on local conditions, to comply with monitoring and evaluation responsibilities and measure progress on biodiversity action, and asks for a clear set of indicators and measurable targets that are standardised at European level; stands ready to collaborate and contribute in the development and implementation of the new governance framework to ensure a structure that is most effective in harnessing the full potential of LRAs in bending the curve in biodiversity loss;

28.

Calls on the EU, building on existing evidence of effective implementation, to take concrete action, including capacity development, that further mainstreams and aligns biodiversity priorities across jurisdictions and policy areas — namely agriculture, spatial planning and urban development, trade, environment, research and innovation, climate mitigation and adaptation and the EU Green Deal — and adequately integrates all levels of governance to ensure delivery of EU-wide impacts;

29.

Emphasises the recommendations of its report on financing biodiversity action (5) to step up ambitions in environmental mainstreaming across EU funding as well as increasing and streamlining biodiversity-dedicated funding targeting LRAs at the appropriate scale, including in LIFE;

30.

Requests coherent cross-border environmental policies and corollary cross-border cooperation, since species live beyond borders;

31.

Calls on the EU to prioritise bending the curve in biodiversity loss as a key principle in all major financial plans, including the Multiannual Financial Framework for 2021-2027 and COVID-19 recovery plans, mobilise sufficient resources to, directly or indirectly, stimulate biodiversity action at all levels of government and specific to the regional context, simplifying procedures for increased uptake of funding; to this end, suggests considering the implementation of a traffic light system on public spending or investment activities which reflects the possible impact on biodiversity and drivers of its loss;

32.

Asks that EU state aid schemes fully integrate the objective of eliminating subsidies that are harmful to biodiversity, ensuring that public and private economic and regulatory incentives are positive for biodiversity by 2030; it also emphasises the importance of including biodiversity in the cohesion policy;

33.

Draws attention to the high number of jobs endangered by biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation and to the job-creation potential of applying bioeconomic and sustainable production models, and calls on the Commission to make preservation of jobs that are directly related to halting biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation a priority in future environmental strategies;

34.

Calls for stepping up investment in research on the links between nature and the economy to ensure additional input for evidence-based policy-making and more effective investments;

35.

Encourages a facilitated process for mainstreaming biodiversity in CAP plans; encourages common binding and effective minimum earmarking for eco-schemes in all national strategic plans;

36.

Points out that there is often incoherence in the terminology used in different directives and regulations, that procedures (e.g. the LIFE programme) are often too complicated for smaller LRAs and mostly targeted at large scale projects and not adequate for nature projects in peri-urban and rural areas;

37.

Notes the important role of zoos and aquariums, but highlights that the conservation and preservation of biodiversity should focus on in-situ efforts and the prevention of wildlife trafficking, stepping up the protection of local species and increasing knowledge about them; offers its support to LRAs in improving the implementation of the EU Zoo Directive in alignment with CBD targets;

38.

Recalls that while the EU’s framework for marine environmental protection is one of the most comprehensive and ambitious worldwide, a boost in action is necessary to be able to properly address main pressures such as overfishing and unsustainable plastic litter, excess nutrients, fishing practices, underwater noise and all kinds of pollution; sustainable fishing practices and health of marine ecosystems are essential for economies, people and communities in coastal areas;

39.

Calls on the EU to strengthen the important role of sub-national governments in preserving and re-establishing biodiversity, particularly in unlocking the potential of biocultural diversity. As the concept of biocultural diversity encompasses biodiversity, cultural diversity and local, regional and European identity, the preservation of biodiversity is likely to bring added value from the perspective of local communities;

40.

Calls on the EU to stand up for a strengthened Post-2020 GBF reflecting the equal importance of the international, regional and local levels by means of a dedicated decision for full involvement of LRAs, building on the legacy of the Plan of Action of Decision X/22 and its remarkable achievements at all levels of government over the past decade;

Establishing the role of cities and regions in the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework

41.

Supports the goal of the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration for accelerating and massively scaling up the global restoration of degraded and destroyed ecosystems to fight the climate crisis and enhance food security, water supply and biodiversity, e.g. through the Bonn Challenge that aims to restore 350 million hectares of degraded ecosystems by 2030;

42.

Reiterates the need for formal recognition of the key role of SLGs in achieving global restoration and biodiversity objectives by multiple decisions of previous CBD COPs and calls on UN Parties to engage with their SLGs and strengthen their capacities to incorporate biodiversity into urban, spatial and territorial plans in order to achieve the CBD objectives and the Post-2020 GBF as per the mission of Decision X/22;

43.

Welcomes the formal recognition of the connection between biodiversity and human health in the Post-2020 GBF and highlights the fact that SLGs are key to implementing and managing NBS, including accessible and inclusive green spaces in urban, peri-urban and rural areas, effectively improving health conditions;

44.

Recommends explicitly referring to the role of SLGs throughout the Post-2020 GBF, in particular by developing goals and targets (amending section I. Introduction/B), building partnerships, driving momentum for change (by amending section I. Introduction/C) and mainstreaming biodiversity, including in relevant sectoral policies at all levels of government (by rephrasing section D, 2030 targets, item 13) (6);

45.

Recalls the need for collective action of all stakeholders and the wider public, with special attention to contributions from IPLCs, women, youth and those directly relying on and managing biodiversity;

46.

Calls for prioritising a Long-term Approach to Biodiversity Mainstreaming (LTAM), horizontally and vertically, across policy areas and sectors at subnational and local levels, and notes that SLGs, as the local public governance interface with civil society and the private sector, are best positioned to address ecosystem restoration and protection in specific local and regional contexts, pooling resources and utilising economies of scale;

47.

Advocates Post-2020 GBF Target 15 for explicitly addressing the need for additional resources to support the LTAM through targeted capacity development at all levels of government, including through innovative, activating methods such as peer-to-peer learning, to reverse biodiversity loss, restore ecosystems, prevent invasive alien species and the illegal killing of and trade in wildlife, and involve key stakeholders and experts, in particular IPLC, in managing biodiversity and providing technical assistance and adequate financial and human resources;

48.

Calls on CBD Parties to significantly step up public funding as the backbone of resource mobilisation, collected by and distributed to SLGs for investment in biodiversity action at their level, with special consideration of biodiversity hotspots, in order to create enabling conditions for private sector investment;

49.

Recommends developing Communication, Education and Public Awareness-raising (CEPA) initiatives in alliance with technical experts, artists, writers and the education and media sectors, tailored to the local and subnational level to highlight the cultural, tourism-related, recreational, human health, economic and intrinsic value of biodiversity across communication in the public, private and business sectors and emphasises the unique position, insight and legitimacy of SLGs as the level of government closest to the people for implementing such initiatives;

50.

Calls for provision of consistent definitions of indicators, including on urban green space, based on the revised Singapore Index on Cites’ Biodiversity, as a tool to measure the contribution of local biodiversity action supporting a clear role for SLGs in the Post-2020 GBF monitoring, reporting and verifying mechanism (MRV);

51.

Urges monitoring efforts to be significantly scaled up, harnessing new technologies, all adequate data sources and predictive modelling in integrated biodiversity monitoring systems, so as to inform assessment of the effectiveness of international agreements and accurately and transparently track the impact of biodiversity action at all levels;

52.

Calls on the Global Biodiversity Outlook (GBO) to make explicit reference to the importance of SLGs in developing and implementing national policies;

53.

Encourages annual platform conventions for SLGs to connect, exchange and collectively present their contributions to the Post-2020 GBF and to establish interfaces to such as the Global Platform for Sustainable Cities, the Global Environment Facility's Sustainable Cities, BIODEV 2030, IADB's Emerging and Sustainable Cities Programme, the FAO’s Great Green Wall of Cities and the CBD Area-based commitments Platform;

54.

Advocates the COP15 Decision dedicated to full participation of SLGs in the post-2020 GBF, including a renewed Decision X/22 delineating a Plan of Action on SLGs for Biodiversity and accelerating a ‘whole-of-government’ approach to vertical collaboration between all levels of government to ensure policy coherence and exploit their full potential for meeting the 2050 Vision and 2030 Mission;

55.

Supports the recommendation by the Subsidiary Body on Implementation (SBI) ‘On Engagement with Subnational and Local Governments to enhance implementation of the Global Biodiversity Framework’ and requests that the SBI undertake a mid-term review of the role of SLGs in the implementation of the Post-2020 GBF and LTAM in 2024;

56.

Highlights the important collaboration with international key partners (7) in the ‘Edinburgh Process for SLGs on the development of the Post-2020 GBF’ and the forthcoming 7th Global Summit of Subnational and Local Governments in the global positioning of SLGs as part of an effective Post-2020 GBF;

57.

Commits itself to proactively engage in implementing the Post-2020 GBF and the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2030 and in preparing an aligned, ambitious EU Biodiversity Action Plan.

---

(1)  All levels of government below national level are referred to in the wording ‘Subnational Governments, Cities and Other Local Authorities for Biodiversity’ (SLGs) in the context of the global framework, and in the wording ‘Local and Regional Authorities’ (LRAs) in the EU context.

(2)  COM(2020) 80 final, COR (2020) 01361 (OJ C 324, 1.10.2020, p. 58).

(3)  Xie, L.; Bulkeley, H. (2020) City for Biodiversity: The Roles of Nature-Based Solutions in European Cities, NATURVATION.

(4)  NAT (2019) 4601 (OJ C 324, 1.10.2020, p. 48).

(5)  CoR (2020) Financing biodiversity action: opportunities and challenges for EU subnational governments.

(6)  As per Zero Draft of the Post 2020 GBF https://www.cbd.int/article/2020-01-10-19-02-38

(7)  Such as the Group of Leading Subnational Governments (GoLS), ICLEI, Regions4 and the Governments of Scotland and Quebec.

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions – Single Market Barriers Report and Single Market Enforcement Action Plan

(2020/C 440/06)

Rapporteur: Tadeusz TRUSKOLASKI (PL/EA), Mayor of Białystok Reference documents: Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Identifying and addressing barriers to the Single Market COM(2020) 93 final Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Long term Action Plan for better implementation and enforcement of Single Market rules COM(2020) 94 final

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Background

1.

believes that the European single market is one of the greatest achievements of the European Union (EU), and represents a unique model of integration in the world by guaranteeing free movement of people, goods, services and capital throughout the EU and in associated countries and regions;

2.

stresses that policy on the European single market plays a key role in carrying out the strategy for sustainable growth and greater economic, social and territorial cohesion in the European Union. The creation of a European single market stimulates trade and makes Europe more attractive for foreign investment;

3.

emphatically points out that the European single market is at the core of the economic and political integration of the EU, because it covers 450 million consumers and 22,5 million small and medium enterprises (SMEs), which make up around 99 % of all businesses in the EU;

4.

stresses that the European single market provides EUR 14 trillion in gross domestic product (GDP) annually, which ensures the functioning of the European economy and growth for Europeans;

5.

points out the importance of trade in goods on the European single market, as it accounts for a quarter of the EU’s total GDP and represents almost one sixth of world trade in goods;

6.

agrees with the European Parliament’s Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) that completing the European single market, and thereby removing barriers, can generate at least EUR 183 billion a year in added value for Member States, which makes up 1,2 % of EU GDP;

7.

appreciates the efforts of the European Commission (EC) to identify barriers to the European single market and points out that its communication of 10 March 2020 presents key problems concerning businesses that require immediate solutions. Regrets however that the two Commission communications focus mainly on the obstacles perceived by businesses and did not address concerns by other social partners and address consumer aspects only peripherally;

8.

notes that the 2020 edition of the Single Market Scoreboard published on 3 July 2020 concludes that, despite an improvement in the transposition of EU legislation notably in the field of consumer legislation (a 15 % decrease in the transposition deficit), the number of infringement proceedings in not decreasing, still due to either ‘incomplete’ or ‘incorrect’ transposition. The CoR is also concerned by the fact that most market infringement cases relate to environment (28 %) (ahead of transport (17 %) and taxation (10 %));

9.

acknowledges that the form of the current regulations and tools for the single market is better suited to exchange of goods than of services. The Committee stresses the need to build flexible tools that can quickly be adapted to changing and newly emerging products and services;

10.

believes that the priority of a new strategy for the European single market must be to truly eliminate barriers and increase access to information;

Barriers to the single market — sources and consequences

11.

points out that legal divergences between Member States are precisely why eliminating barriers to the European single market is such a lengthy process;

12.

agrees with the European Commission that regulatory differences create particularly heavy regulatory burden for businesses, in particular SMEs, including start-ups and scale-ups, innovators and promoters of new business models, therefore calls on the European Commission and Member States to intensify their efforts with regard to removing unnecessary regulation;

13.

stresses that small and medium-sized enterprises in particular have limited administrative and human resource capacities to be able to cope with complex red tape; a major barrier to cross-border cooperation in the single market is the A1 certificate, for which time-consuming formalities need to be completed when workers are posted, even for regular postings in a neighbouring country. These formalities could consequently considerably reduce cross-border activities and thus significantly hamper the functioning of the single market. In this regard, the Committee calls on the Commission to be proactive and, together with the EU legislators, ensure that the existing procedures for A1 certification in border regions are simplified;

14.

draws attention to the need for more effective enforcement of Treaty provisions that prohibit quantitative restrictions on imports and exports (TFEU Articles 34 to 36) and the need to manage the notification procedures concerning technical regulations (Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1)) and technical barriers to trade;

15.

expects the European Commission to create a new tool for observing market malfunctions, for example, ‘following’ a product and enabling checks on barriers throughout the whole chain of production, distribution and sales, as well as consumption and end-of-life handling;

The European economy of the future

16.

is in favour of the priorities of the strategy for European industry indicated so far, such as aligning it with the goals of the European Green Deal and digitalisation, while at the same time implementing the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which will ensure a sustainable economic recovery, especially following the COVID-19 pandemic;

17.

acknowledges that there are still significant challenges: Big Data, 5G networks, the development of innovation (including in particular IT, the creation of digital realities and autonomy of machines), while remaining focused on building and defending the sovereignty of industrial data;

18.

encourages the extension of the powers and geographical structure of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). An effective institution for protecting intellectual property rights with a sufficiently large budget and staff base allowing it to work throughout the world is a way to ensure the growth of European companies;

19.

acknowledges that environmental protection policy must play a leading role in the development of industry. Therefore, this objective requires that activity, including scientific activity, be geared towards creating the groundwork for an ecological society and ecological business;

20.

notes the need for comprehensive support for modernisation and decarbonisation of energy-intensive industries. However, this cannot be done by transferring production to other countries or using subcontractors in third countries which do not respect European regulations;

21.

stresses the need for (financial and IT) support for sustainable and smart sectors in the areas of energy efficiency, mobility and models for eliminating pollutant emissions;

22.

understands the need to diversify production and reduce costs, but notes the need to decrease the dependence of European businesses on components from other parts of the world; the current COVID-19 pandemic shows that a stronger local economy should be promoted for certain industries. In the area of medical products in particular, it is important to increase production in Europe and thus become independent from, for example, Asian markets;

Services in the single market

23.

stresses the importance of trade in services on the European single market, because it makes up approximately 70 % of all economic activity in the EU and has a similar rate in terms of employment;

24.

notes that the European Commission should commit more resources to increasing the scale of trade in services to implement the services directive more effectively;

25.

in further work on a strategy, calls for advantage to be taken of the capacity and knowledge of local and regional authorities which have daily contact with business representatives from the micro and small enterprise categories;

26.

calls on the European Commission to act more decisively regarding monopolies, particularly on the digital services market, where entities from third countries have a predominant position;

27.

welcomes the announcement of a new Digital Services Act, which would i.a. replace the 20 year old ‘Directive on electronic commerce’ (2). Insists however that the scope of the planned legislation must not be limited to the conformity of products sold on online platforms but also address the risk of circumvention of employment, social, consumer protection, tax and duty regulations and thereby unfair competition with companies in the offline sector. Precarious working conditions for workers of digital platforms are a matter of particular concern;

28.

points out the need to focus on innovations, investment and skills so that the new ‘skills package’ reflects the real needs of the labour market and that upskilling and reskilling are carried out according to its guidelines, including within projects funded by the EU budget;

Assessment of the previous activity of the European Commission

29.

welcomes the establishment of a Single Market Enforcement Task-Force (SMET) but regrets that its membership is so far restricted to representatives of Member States;

30.

acknowledges the considerable value of the experience gained from the REFIT platform;

31.

appreciates the Commission’s efforts to make SOLVIT a default alternative dispute resolution tool;

32.

considers it essential to make bold decisions on Member States in breach of binding legislation so that proceedings could be imminently launched, carried out and enforced;

33.

calls for better application of the principle of mutual recognition to the free movement of goods, which has not been used to its full potential in practice, and for applying this principle to the area of services as much as possible; in this respect calls for the thorough application of the Regulation (EU) 2019/515 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3);

34.

expects a clear and decisive stance from the European Commission on unfair trade practices, including the promotion of export-oriented industries by third countries;

35.

eagerly awaits the publication of the white paper on antitrust rules and further consultations which should show the scale of the problem;

36.

demands that actions on coordinating EU legal frameworks on the single market be accelerated so that the flows of essential types of goods — e.g. food, medical, etc. — would not be held up in any way;

37.

expects border control to be carried out based on the principles of necessity and proportionality;

38.

calls for more efforts to provide information on the possibility of using modern ICT tools. Modern industry and the growth of cross-border trade require solutions that are able to reduce geographical distance, especially in cross-border regions;

39.

looks forward to the preparation of a strategy for the single market with ambitious, yet realistic road map for proposals aimed at removing the remaining barriers, not only an analytical section showing barriers and orientations;

40.

challenges the purpose and usefulness of the One-In, One-Out principle, according to which one EU piece of legislation is to be deleted for every new one. Instead of following such a quantitative approach to legislation, which would run the risk of having a negative impact on broad sectors of society, including the employment sector, consumer protection and the environment and may contradict Article 3(3) TEU, the quality of the legislation, adapting to technological evolutions and societal needs, should remain the guiding principle for any new legislation;

41.

points out the need to create an integrated pharmaceutical safety system, which would allow resources to be channelled according to critical demand in crisis situations;

Activity of public administration and local and regional authorities

42.

points out the full support of local and regional authorities for the European Commission’s efforts to eliminate barriers in the European single market;

43.

draws attention to the need to provide education about the possibilities that arise in relation to the European single market — above all, to inform local and regional government entities that have direct contact with European entrepreneurs and consumers;

44.

supports the idea of setting up a central information point on the legislation in force in the single market for officials in Member States and with the aim of maximising the flow of information between the European and local level;

45.

supports actions aimed at improving knowledge and awareness that include the single digital gateway, which will ensure access to comprehensive information on legislation and administrative procedures of the single market, and direct users to the most relevant support services and contact points;

46.

envisages better use of existing European single market IT tools, such as the Internal Market Information System (IMI), and agrees that it is necessary to create a unified online platform for law enforcement;

47.

encourages the Commission to consider the possibility of harnessing the potential of local and regional authorities in predicting compliance with proposed legislation in advance, since in many cases those authorities are responsible for implementing it once adopted. Local and regional authorities also have the capacity to test solutions and they receive direct feedback about ability to comply;

48.

suggests that it is necessary to speed up work on harmonising technical standards and the freedom to provide services on the European single market and this process should be completed by the end of 2023;

Global trade challenges

49.

criticises the imbalance in the global market concerning the level and scope of (legal and financial) aid granted by individual states to private and public economic entities which provide services and distribute products to the European Union;

50.

points out the need for stronger promotion of European values around the world — including those concerning trade in goods and services. The EU and its institutions must advocate an open global trade system based on international rules;

51.

encourages measures to take advantage of the possibilities offered by digitalisation and almost instant access to information to combat price dumping;

52.

points out the importance of a rules-based global trade system with a strong WTO, and opposes protectionism and isolation. The EU’s goal must be to revitalise and strengthen the WTO, including by modernising its working methods in key areas and filling in gaps in its rulebook so that the WTO can respond appropriately to current trade policy challenges;

53.

suggests developing and implementing a policy for a European reorganisation of supply chains so that in the future European businesses do not suffer from a reduction in global trade and lack of available components and EU citizens do not have their access to some products limited;

54.

points out the need to develop ‘EU-rest of world’ trade relations based on European strategic interests (including similarly ambitious environmental standards for all countries), with the aim of strengthening the EU’s global competitiveness and its role internationally;

Final remarks — conclusions and recommendations

55.

stresses the need for cooperation between individual Member States and uniform action, particularly in the field of international affairs which affect the secure and stable functioning of all EU countries (e.g. in achieving European independence from raw materials from third countries);

56.

rules out the long-term occurrence of imbalances concerning operating rules between EU Member States, as has been the case so far (e.g. concerning payments to the EU budget, use of the euro, etc.);

57.

stresses the importance of integrating private and public institutions that work for businesses and consumers, particularly at the supranational level, because they are much quicker to notice problems resulting from diverging legislation or derogation from rules adopted at EU level;

58.

stresses that digitalisation of European business and public administrations, including technological solutions concerning the single market, is a priority for the EU. Fields such as cybersecurity, personal data protection, and the collection and processing of information in the cloud, need improvement and new solutions;

59.

recommends: a) close harmonisation of rules and coordination of regulators for sectors that have a strong impact on the functioning of the economy, e.g. telecommunications and energy; b) an assessment of costs and benefits of full harmonisation of legislation in the short term (several years) in relation to other sectors and an assessment of the legal and technological capacity for implementing solutions in economies at different levels of socioeconomic development; c) a greater commitment from the Commission to removing non-tariff barriers within the EU, including limitations in the form of applying unjustifiable national technical regulations and regulatory and non-regulatory requirements for products and service providers and conditions for providing services; d) increasing cooperation with local business representatives so that the new regulations can be initiated from the bottom up; e) including an entry on clear responsibility and scope for these actions, in terms of creating and optimising the European single market, in future documents of authorities at the regional and local level; f) fostering a culture of consumption of products produced in the EU as synonymous with quality and modernity;

60.

encourages the creation of common guidelines for constructing public portals (at least at the regional level — NUTS 2) so that businesses from different Member States can easily find the necessary information;

61.

points out the need to strengthen European integration based on the values of democracy, the rule of law, the safeguarding of high environmental, climate protection and health standards, so that synergies between the cohesion of EU countries and economic effects become effective. The imperfections of the single market are felt at local and regional level;

62.

stresses the importance of the industrial autonomy of the European single market, including the need to create a strategy to guarantee the supply of critical raw materials;

63.

calls for boldness when implementing new solutions, particularly those that concern climate neutrality of the European economy or directly strengthening the uniformity of the single market.

---

(1)  Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services (OJ L 241, 17.9.2015, p. 1).

(2)  Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (OJ L 178, 17.7.2000, p. 1).

(3)  Regulation (EU) 2019/515 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2019 on the mutual recognition of goods lawfully marketed in another Member State and repealing Regulation (EC) No 764/2008 (OJ L 91, 29.3.2019, p. 1).

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions – Demographic change: proposals on measuring and tackling its negative effects in the EU regions

(2020/C 440/07)

Rapporteur: János Ádám KARÁCSONY (HU/EPP) Member of Tahitótfalu local government

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

General comments

1.

considers that demographic change is one of the biggest challenges facing European regions, cities and rural population centres, and points out that some of the driving factors behind it are: an ageing population, low fertility and birth rates and the worsening unequal distribution of the population;

2.

recalls the guidance of the Strategic Agenda 2019-2024 endorsed by the European Council regarding the European model for the future which also requires addressing the demographic challenges;

3.

welcomes the initiative of the European Commission to ask the Vice President of the Commission, Dubravka Šuica, to analyse the impact of demographic change on different groups in society and on areas and regions disproportionately affected in Europe and to put forward measures to address these challenges, including brain drain, better reconciling work and family life, the future child guarantee, the Green Paper on ageing and a long-term vision for rural areas, bearing in mind the need for gender mainstreaming in all these measures;

4.

intends to develop the role of adult or elderly people as resources for the community, not just recipients of care, by encouraging them to become active in social, civil, economic and cultural life and fostering the establishment of paths to independence and wellbeing in their day-to-day lives;

5.

strongly endorses the European Commission report on the impact of demographic change, which takes an approach combining the digital transition, the green economy and the demographic challenge — a comprehensive approach which is crucial for delivering fair, sustainable solutions for all generations, taking care to ensure that no one is left behind, as called for by the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals;

6.

welcomes the initiative of the Croatian Council Presidency to put demographic change as a key priority and welcomes the referral that the CoR has received on this matter;

7.

welcomes the initiative of the European Parliament to come forward with a report of the demographic challenges in the response to the Communication of the Commission;

8.

recalls the Committee of the Regions’ contribution to the Covenant on Demographic Change, based on the findings of the thematic network on innovation for age-friendly environments which brings together local, regional and national authorities working to support active, healthy ageing in response to the demographic challenge, with the support of the WHO;

9.

points out that at international level synergies with the United Nations are needed in order to revise the 2002 Madrid International Plan of Action on Ageing and hold discussions with the Working Group on Ageing, with a view to safeguarding the human rights of elderly people more effectively. At global level, it is important to work with the World Health Organization on the Decade of Healthy Ageing;

Main demographic trends and challenges

10.

draws attention to the significantly different growth trends of the population across EU Member States and regions that urgently need to be tackled with different measures among the EU27;

11.

underlines that, at regional level, highly negative demographic trends have been observed in recent years across large parts of Europe. In most of these areas, ‘islands’ of demographic growth can be observed around capital and metropolitan cities (1);

12.

refers to the finding that regions that lose population tend to be rural, already sparsely populated and remote. Declining industrial areas and various peripheral towns are also affected by depopulation trends (2);

13.

highlights that the decreasing number of working-age people and the increasing number of older people compound the impact on old-age dependency ratios. This ratio is projected to rise from 29,3 % in 2016 to 52,3 % by 2080 within the EU (an increase of 23,0 percentage points) (3);

14.

recognises that, contrary to the growing global population, the pace of population growth within the EU has slowed down significantly. The year 2015 has witnessed the first natural population decline in the EU-28, with more deaths than births;

15.

highlights a steady increase of the dependency ratio, whereby according to Eurostat population figures, in 1960 there were on average three young people (aged 0-14) for every elderly person (aged 65 or over), 100 years later, in 2060, there are projected to be two elderly for every young person;

16.

underlines that due to the delay in the childbearing age of women, the desired childbirth postponed to a later age, resulting in the planned (4) number of children — typically 2-3 children (5) — not being met, resulting in a difference between the actual and the desired number of children (fertility gap). As long as there is a fertility gap in the EU Member States, there is a primary role to reduce the fertility gap, migration can only occur thereafter. Every effort must be made to encourage and incentivise childbearing;

17.

stresses that the loss of young people in regions characterised by outward migration and against a backdrop of declining birth rates presents an extraordinary disadvantage for smaller municipalities in terms of maintaining essential public services and boosting economic and productive activity in these areas, which are essential factors in retaining and attracting the population in the territory and curbing the phenomenon of rural depopulation that affects the EU Member States;

18.

refers to recent studies (6) by the CoR that particularly highlight the territorial dimension of the demographic challenge;

19.

in line with its own opinion on brain drain, emphasises that the free movement of individuals and workers forms the basis of the internal market and is one of the main freedoms recognised in the EU Treaties;

The need for coherent policy response at all levels of governance

20.

draws attention to its own opinion on ‘The EU response to the demographic challenge’ (2016), which stipulates that many European policies can contribute to addressing the demographic challenge without providing specific measures to support the areas affected by these challenges. This affects transport, the information society, employment and social policy, culture, the environment and climate, as well as businesses; reiterates its call for an overarching European strategy on demographic change and underlines that addressing these challenges will require a comprehensive approach from a wide range of policy fields to help to reverse (pro-active) or mitigate (reactive) the effects of demographic change, such as:

Pro-active policy options:

—

since one of the determinants of population is birth rate, creating the right conditions that would make it easier for people who want to have children to have more and earlier, while considering that, according to the ‘Demographic outlook for the European Union’ (2017) (7), policies to alter future demographics are limited and take time to have an impact, the focus should be about adapting and smoothing the transition to an older EU, while supporting young people in the transition to adult life and families to increase the fertility rates in the affected regions;

—	increasing the attractiveness of regions so that they provide young people with opportunities for study, innovation and stable and high-quality employment, through dedicated investment in, inter alia, infrastructures, culture and connectivity;

—	developing dedicated incentives schemes to attract young people to settle in these regions;

—	making it economically viable for young people to establish large families;

—

developing the concept of the ‘economy of wellbeing’ in the EU, whereby increasing people’s, and therefore families’, wellbeing (in terms of education, health, childcare, work-life balance, housing, mobility of transport, connectivity and culture) contributes to a virtuous economic cycle, helping sustain long-term investments into wellbeing. This can improve the attractiveness of regions and towns as places to live and to start a family, based on the above factors and not only on the basis of economic growth;

—	promoting and implementing a comprehensive, integrated policy designed to study and support families as they freely perform their social roles;

—	flagging up the specific need, in an inclusive society, to prepare effective responses to the needs of people with disabilities as they get older;

Reactive options:

—	improving labour market participation, especially for women, through increased investment in better work-life balance, social and family-friendly infrastructure and more gender equality;

—	reducing the health and caring costs of an ageing society by encouraging active and healthy ageing, investing in new forms of independent living (new concepts of housing) and promoting the social economy;

—	increasing planning of public investment through a demography check of public investment, developing methodologies and technical tools that make it easier to analyse the demographic impact of the various policies;

—	lowering the drop-out rate of young people, increasing the skills base by investing in education and promoting training tailored to demand and potentialities in each region, re-skilling and flexibility of the workforce;

—	giving special attention to the public service provision such as health care, education and culture onto small- and mid-size cities in the regions and use digital solutions for reaching out to all places;

—	creating a functioning and consensual legal framework at European level, which will facilitate integration of non-EU citizens into the European labour market and society as a part of a comprehensive strategy to address demographic change;

—	providing types of dwellings suitable for mixed social housing conducive to inter-generational cohabitation, synergies and reciprocity with various forms of inclusive sharing;

—	promoting measures intended to raise quality of life and combat loneliness and isolation among elderly people, particularly but not only during pandemics;

—	promoting situations in which various generations can form social ties, thus fostering the wellbeing of society as a whole;

Demography and the ongoing discussion on the Multiannual Financial Framework

21.

there is a need for allocating more European funds in the future entitled to combat the phenomenon brain drain;

22.

particularly highlights, in the context of the ongoing negotiation about the Structural Funds regulations, that the reference to demographic change should be strengthened as suggested by the European Parliament, and the application of these funds should be more flexible in the areas and regions that have been disproportionately affected by this phenomenon so that they can be used jointly in the same project, so that advance payments can be made available and so that they can complement the financial instruments;

23.

recalls that its own opinion on the European Regional Development Fund and Cohesion Fund (2018) states that the objectives of the European Regional Development Fund and Cohesion Fund (ERDF) include that of supporting urban and rural areas with geographical or demographic handicaps. It also includes the provision of additional EU financial support for projects that promote environmentally sustainable and socially inclusive economic development in the regions concerned;

24.

recalls, in this regard, the proposal by the Committee of the Regions and the European Parliament that particular support be given to NUTS level 3 areas or clusters of local administrative units with a population density of below 12,5 inhabitants per km2 for sparsely populated areas or below 8 inhabitants per km2 for very sparsely populated areas, or with an average population decrease of more than 1 % between 2007 and 2017, which should be subject to specific regional and national plans to enhance attractiveness, increase business investment and boost the accessibility of digital and public services, including a fund in the Structural Fund cooperation agreement;

25.

reiterates the CoR’s and EP’s position on support for national plans to support regional and local areas facing continuous demographic decline and needing support, including financial support from the ESIF, to increase attractiveness, increase business investment and improve accessibility of digital and public services. These national and regional plans must be reflected in the new EU strategy for demographic change;

Demography aspects in key EU policies

26.

stresses the demographic dimension of urbanisation, as the European Union is also confronted with growing urbanisation, and emphasises the relevance of strongly addressing the demographic challenges in implementing the Urban Agenda for the European Union and in the context of the renewal of the Leipzig Charter;

27.

supports the position of the European Parliament which reflected the Committee of the Regions’ proposals on helping sparsely populated regions, allocating at least 5 % of the ERDF resources available at national level under the Investment for jobs and growth goal to integrated territorial development in non-urban areas with natural, geographic or demographic handicaps or disadvantages or which have difficulty accessing basic services. Out of this amount, at least 17,5 % shall be allocated to rural areas ‘and communities taking into account provisions of a Smart Villages Pact to develop projects such as smart villages’ (8), by making these areas more attractive and encouraging repopulation;

28.

emphasises the role of the Youth Guarantee and Your First EURES Job, which helps young people find a job. The direct importance of the Youth Guarantee in democracy and indirectly in demography is also evident from the previous results of the 2014-2020 period: it helped to improve the lives of millions of young Europeans;

29.

looks forward to the European Commission’s proposals for a future Child Guarantee to help children at risk of poverty and social exclusion, by promoting investments that ensure that children enjoy the fundamental right to grow and flourish in a child-friendly and family-friendly environment, prioritising measures to improve overall family incomes and support parents, and that they have access to free and high-quality healthcare, education, childcare, decent housing and adequate nutrition; believes that family policies should not be regarded as a cost for the public budget, but rather as an investment in a strategic asset for society;

30.

considers that the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP 2014-2020), which deals with rural development, helps to tackle demographic challenges. During the 2021-2027 period, the CAP should therefore remain a strong EU policy. Vibrant rural areas, young farmers and family-based farms demonstrating good practices should play a key role in tackling climate change, protecting the environment and preserving landscapes and biodiversity and preventing depopulation in rural areas;

31.

although it has a very limited scope of action, the European Commission should intervene in the land market legislation in order to: stimulate the use of the possibilities under RD to support the new actions to foster land mobility (land banks, farmland matching initiatives and other initiatives promoted at local level to encourage the access to land by new entrants); broaden the scope of the support actions to new farm business models (in particular innovative types of partnerships among farmers) and local organisations, which are able to support young farmers and new entrants in land obtaining; encourage more active national policies through EU recommendations on access to land with best practices (taking into account established best practices);

32.

considers that the Member States must give firm support to policies fostering women’s involvement and encourage participation in the Information and Communications Technology (ICT), in Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts and Mathematics (STEAM) and the rural economy as a precondition for balancing the population pyramid in areas suffering, or at risk of, depopulation;

33.

asks the European Commission and Member States to ensure the necessary coordination between the EU Cohesion policy and the Common Agricultural Policy in order to ensure that the rural areas can also implement Smart Villages projects through an integrated approach (ITI, CLLD or LEADER);

34.

reiterates the concept expressed in its Opinion on Active and healthy ageing (2019) that ‘the challenges of demographic change will require research and an active European industry in order to modernise, design and produce new innovative solutions for an ageing population, be they everyday products, infrastructure, technology or software’, particularly the development of telemedicine to ensure high standards of specialised treatment, especially in rural or sparsely populated areas; and ‘sees this as an opportunity for the EU to position itself as a market leader in the Silver Economy, creating local jobs, generating wealth and exporting ground-breaking innovations abroad’. A family-friendly environment and intergenerational solidarity strengthens the above statement, and local and regional authorities play a key role to this end in creating conditions that promote and ensure healthy ageing. To achieve this, both specific calls on this subject and better coordination of the various financial resources available are required;

35.

stresses the key role that information and communication technologies (ICTs) and the intelligent environment can play in improving the living conditions in those areas most affected by demographic challenges. As a result, the Committee calls on the EU to address the digital divide that affects many areas by using SMART solutions and to that end making use of EU tools and programmes, such as structural and investment funds and the Next Generation EU programme, with a view to ensuring high-quality digital connectivity for everyone;

36.

referring to the digital divide, highlights smart solutions in the field of elderly care and demand-responsive transport (DRT), as well as the need to plan for the provision of mobile phone coverage on minor local roads. Similarly, considers it crucially important for the provision of mobile telephony to be included under the universal telecommunications service, especially in sparsely populated rural population centres and their local roads, which make life easier especially for the elderly and parents with young children. All of these have a distinct impact on population retention;

37.

organise training programmes on and support for the use of digital technologies to close the digital gap for elderly people, and set up change management programmes for social service managers in municipal administrations to assist with the digital transformation of services to individuals;

38.

agrees that the Commission’s various actions proposed in its communication for 2014-2020 adopted in September 2017 (‘Boosting Growth and Cohesion in EU Border Regions’) can help reduce the complexity, length and costs of cross-border interaction and promotes the pooling of services along internal borders. The Commission emphasises that ‘investments to improve living conditions will be significant: joint environmental actions and joint measures to mitigate climate change effects will lead to greater protection of border populations’ (9);

39.

reaffirms the observation expressed in its own opinion on the Work-life balance for parents and carers (2017), that ‘current demographic trends make it imperative to rethink gender roles and promote more flexible and equal working arrangements’. With this in mind, the EU legal framework in the area of policies with the aim to support the reconciliation of work and family life and gender equality is inextricably linked to economy, demography, employment and regional aspects. With this in mind, the Committee welcomes the European Commission’s Gender Equality Strategy;

40.

draws attention to its own opinions on Mobility in geographically and demographically challenged regions (2014) and on The EU response to the demographic challenge (2016). They cover areas such as ensuring mobility of transport policies and set out further specific measures; these include innovative approaches such as ‘transport on demand’ to improve connectivity in and between all regions the CoR also underlines that new approaches to funding transport in challenged regions are needed;

41.

points out that the high unemployment rate does not meet the requirements of the labour market. Therefore, it is necessary to organise vocational trainings or extension courses for unemployed persons who are unable to fit in or reintegrate into the labour market. Public authorities, regional and local institutions and a joint cooperation employment services institutes should be involved;

42.

considers it necessary to introduce a positive message about rural areas into a range of policies in order to tackle the depopulation affecting the countryside, in such a way as to project a positive image of rural areas, highlighting their wealth of positive aspects and values;

43.

it is important to highlight that fathers participate more in childcare and family-life, children enjoy higher cognitive and emotional outcomes and physical health. Those who engage more with their children tend to report greater life satisfaction and better physical and mental health. In 2015 three-quarters of OECD countries provided at least a few days of paid leave that can be used only by the father, either through paid father-specific parental leave. Parental leave may also help reduce discrimination against women in the workplace;

44.

recalls the Sustainable Development Goals and, in particular, a dedicated goal for urban development, SDG 11, which calls for ‘making cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable’. Supports those projects directed to local authorities, cities and regions that are actively contributing to achieve the SDG 11;

45.

takes into account the European Green Deal, which is an important response to the environmental, demographic, economic and social challenges. A sustainable growth strategy is essential for transforming the EU into a fair, prosperous and inclusive society and there needs to be a rethink of policies for clean energy in the economy, industry and the consumption, transport, food and agriculture and construction as well as taxation and some aspects of social and overall family support issues;

46.

stresses that having children should not be an obstacle to professional ambition and should not lead to impoverishment or loss of purchasing power, especially in the case of large families and single-parent families. Family planning is for the long-term, therefore it is important to have a stable and proactive policy, which includes reconciling work-life balance and the involvement of fathers in family life. Swift and flexible return to labour market for mothers after maternity leave should be facilitated;

47.

points out that part of the jobs that will be needed in the future do not currently exist: consequently, training must be provided for our citizens (of all ages and sectors) in skills that help them access employment. Training policy planning should pay special attention to people living in areas with a lower population density or widely dispersed populations to facilitate their access to training;

48.

points out the importance of the unpaid work mainly done by women by supporting families and compensating the lack of public social infrastructure. Unpaid work is mostly unpaid care and domestic work, which are respectively estimated at 10 and 39 % of gross domestic product (GDP) in the world;

Demography and Democracy

49.

considers that emerging issues such as the transformation of society and population distribution give rise to political responses, which may lead to a polarisation in the democratic system;

50.

should draw special attention to young people who are or may become parents. The average youth unemployment rate in EU Member States remains higher than that of the working population in general. Young people are rather affected by precarious working conditions. Based on researches access to predictable income and housing for young people should be placed in the foreground in which one of the consequences is to give them the security they need to start a family;

51.

considers that the Trans-European Transport Networks which, according to Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (10), will continue to be financed by the Cohesion Fund during the 2021-2027 programming period, should — as well as loosening existing bottlenecks in the network — prioritise investment in sustainable transport networks and boost public services in rural areas, especially those that are sparsely populated or have widely dispersed populations and with ageing populations, in order to facilitate rural-urban interconnectivity, promote rural development and narrow the digital divide;

52.

alerts therefore on the development of a ‘geography of discontent’ that is taking place in many EU regions and countries where people feel left behind, which is often closely related to demographic decline. Consequently, the access to basic public services should be guaranteed to the rural and the sparsely populated areas;

53.

sees the need to address this development to strengthen our democratic system by facilitating the intergenerational dialogue and actively engaging the elected politicians at the local and regional levels, which are closest to the citizens;

54.

therefore, sees the need to discuss, at the future Conference on the Future of Europe, the link between Democracy and Demography and suggests putting forward clearly its positions on this topic for the conference, paying particular attention to young people’s representation. The Conference should address the so-called ‘geography of discontent’, linked to the level of success of EU policies and their direct and indirect impact on different EU regions and their demography; further suggests that, in this context, the conference could also address the question, how the term ‘regions with severe and permanent demographic handicaps’, that is mentioned in Article 174 of the TFEU, should be defined. Such broader reflection is also relevant within the context of the attainment of the SDGs;

A plea for active subsidiarity and better regulation

55.

underlines that many of the necessary policy responses fall within the responsibility of local and regional authorities in the EU and therefore underlines the need for a strong focus on partnership and multi-level governance in finding adequate solutions;

56.

at the same time underlines the importance for the CoR to have a significant participation throughout the Conference on the Future of Europe, reflecting the fact that there are more than one million elected local and regional representatives in the EU;

57.

pleads to use the concept of ‘active subsidiarity’ developed by the Task Force on Subsidiarity to find workable solutions for addressing demographic change by respecting the division of powers in a direct dialogue with cities and regions;

58.

is well placed to support this process by providing the platform for consultation and dialogue with the European Commission to find adequate solutions;

59.

highlights the importance of using the instrument of territorial impact assessment (TIA) to further design EU policies that are affecting the demographic change and refers to its own recent TIA exercise, carried out in cooperation with the ESPON programme (11);

60.

suggests working closely together with the European Commission in view of the future policy documents such as the Green Paper on Ageing or the long term strategy for rural areas in carrying out a joint consultation to feed into these reports;

Monitoring progress to address the demographic challenge

61.

sees the need for a regular monitoring of the demographic challenge by making a link between the European Semester and demographic change and by closely associating this question with the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals;

62.

underlines the need for regular EU statistics, reflecting not only national but also regional developments, in order to provide policy makers with a clear picture of regional disparities. Further suggests the need for an annual report on the state of play of the demographic challenge in the EU cities and regions, to which the Committee could contribute;

63.

proposes to carry out a regular political dialogue between the European Commission and the EU cities and regions prior to the Annual Sustainable Growth Strategy on the state of play of the demographic challenge; suggests a close collaboration between the Commission and the CoR in organising this process;

The next steps

64.

suggests to the Croatian Council Presidency to put forward Council conclusions on the findings of the stock-taking exercise of the Commission and suggests a broad debate on the demographic challenge in different council formations;

65.

invites the incoming German, Portuguese and Slovenian Presidencies to continue these efforts by focussing in particular on the link between demographic change and the improvement of living conditions everywhere;

66.

underlines the importance of citizens’ participation and encourages leading local stakeholders to strengthen regional horizontal policies, thereby increasing awareness of demographic change within the local community to reinforce the acknowledgement of more citizen-centred measures; suggests to also widely discuss the demographic challenges in dialogues with the citizens;

67.

considers that promotion of private-public cooperation must be structured in such a way that all actors in areas at risk of depopulation or already depopulated can work together in a coordinated way, pooling and strengthening projects that are based on their experience, triggering innovation and promoting a more dynamic economy;

68.

considers that it is crucial to highlight our regions’ rich natural, historical, artistic and cultural heritage in order to increase people’s attachment to their villages and towns, thus supporting, preserving, maintaining and protecting local, native and small communities, linguistic-cultural subregions with a view to strengthen the ability of rural areas to retain local population and revitalise rural areas;

69.

offers the European Commission, the other EU institutions and other regional and international institutions, such as the Union for the Mediterranean and the United Nations, a close cooperation in developing a comprehensive strategy to address the demographic challenge;

70.

recalls that, since 1994, the International Day of Families has been held in the United Nations each year on 15 May. Therefore, proposes that the second Sunday of May could be the European Day of Families.

---

(1)  CoR study on ‘The impact of demographic change on European regions’, Brussels 2016.

(2)  https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2019/637955/EPRS_IDA(2019)637955_EN.pdf

(3)  Source: People in the EU — population projections (Eurostat, 2017)

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Population_projections_in_the_EU#Age_dependency_ratios

(4)  OECD, Family Database, Fertility Indicators: SF2.2 Ideal and actual number of children. http://www.oecd.org/els/family/SF_2_2-Ideal-actual-number-children.pdf

(5)  A total fertility rate of around 2,1 live births per woman is considered to be the replacement level in developed countries: in other words, the average number of live births per woman required to keep the population size (Source: Eurostat, Statistics Explained. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Fertility_statistics#Total_fertility_rate_and_age_of_women_at_birth_of_first_child).

(6)  CoR study on ‘The impact of demographic change on European regions’ and the European Regional Social Scoreboard.

(7)  Demographic outlook for the European Union (2017) (EPRS — European Parliamentary Research Service & EUI — European University). http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2017/614646/EPRS_IDA(2017)614646_EN.pdf

(8)  A8-0094/2019, Cozzolino.

(9)  https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/publications/communications/2017/boosting-growth-and-cohesion-in-eu-border-regions

(10)  Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing the Connecting Europe Facility, amending Regulation (EU) No 913/2010 and repealing Regulations (EC) No 680/2007 and (EC) No 67/2010 (OJ L 348, 20.12.2013, p. 129).

(11)  https://cor.europa.eu/en/our-work/Pages/Territorial-Impact-Assessment.aspx

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions – A Strong Social Europe for Just Transitions

(2020/C 440/08)

Rapporteur: Anne KARJALAINEN (FI/PES), Member of Kerava Municipal Council Reference document: Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — ‘A Strong Social Europe for Just Transitions’ COM(2020) 14 final

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Introduction

1.

welcomes the proposal for a roadmap on the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights in order to achieve the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and implement the European Green Deal in a way that is socially just;

2.

welcomes the European Commission’s decision to launch an open consultation on implementation of the Pillar of Social Rights, given the wide variations in social policy across Europe. The situation of cities and regions has also changed significantly with the COVID-19 pandemic;

3.

underlines the importance of a strong European social agenda, in which competitiveness and social justice complement each other. There is a close link between the social agenda, the Green Deal, and the digital agenda, given that the green and digital transitions must be based on social justice, equality and environmental sustainability. The CoR considers it important for the Just Transition Fund (JTF) to be in line with the EU’s social pillar, which is intended to reduce regional disparities and to tackle structural changes in EU regions. Particular attention should be paid to rural areas, areas affected by industrial transition, regions which suffer from severe and permanent natural or demographic handicaps, and the outermost regions, whose disadvantaged situation has been aggravated by the COVID-19 pandemic;

4.

reiterates its call for better coordination of economic and social policies between European and national government levels in the context of the European semester, and calls for local and regional authority involvement in this coordination to be guaranteed, through shared management based on the subsidiarity principle. Under this principle, strategic planning and implementation tasks must be delegated not just to the Member States but also to local and regional authorities, which are best placed to effectively respond to local needs and challenges;

5.

stresses the importance of a clear, coordinated and ambitious roadmap for implementing the European Pillar of Social Rights. The subsidiarity and proportionality principles will determine the level at which the EU and the Member States deploy the proposed policy instruments and legislative measures when it comes to implementation;

6.

calls on the European Commission to take account of the relevant recommendations drawn up by the urban partnerships under the EU Urban Agenda, such as those on housing, urban poverty, and jobs and skills in the local economy, and to use participatory working methods to bring about a social Europe too;

7.

stresses that the COVID-19 pandemic must not be used as a pretext for postponing or withdrawing the proposals to improve social justice referred to in the European Commission’s communication. On the contrary, the crisis must accelerate and intensify our efforts to achieve structural change for a fairer and greener EU. We need to build more sustainable economic and social systems for the future;

8.

notes that in the near future recovery efforts must have a strong social dimension in order to maintain strong social security networks, safeguard workers’ jobs and avoid wrongful dismissals. People in temporary and atypical forms of employment, women, immigrants, young people and people with disabilities are the most vulnerable in the world of work. People who have become redundant because of the COVID-19 pandemic may not necessarily be able to return to their former jobs. EU programmes must support the upskilling of those at risk of unemployment, the unemployed and the inactive, especially those for whom it is harder to enter the labour market (people at risk of poverty and social exclusion, families with single mothers and single parents where it is difficult to reconcile work and home life, etc.). All this must be achieved with due respect for equal opportunities and the need to avoid discrimination on grounds of sex, gender, birth, ethnicity, political and religious ideas, age, disability, sexual orientation or identity, illness, language or any other personal or social condition or circumstance;

9.

points out that in a context such as the current one, the digital transition has accelerated, which means that many jobs have had to adapt to digitalisation and teleworking. Recommends building on the momentum of recent months to regulate teleworking and recognise the contribution it has made to decarbonisation, thanks to the reduction in travel brought by this mode of work, which does not require being present in the workplace;

10.

notes that in the medium and long term, recovery measures need to address the social dimension of the ecological and digital transitions. We need a fair labour market in the carbon-neutral economy of the future, based on decent jobs, strong social protection, and job opportunities where people live;

11.

points out that public services provided by local and regional authorities have played a key role during the pandemic. Without the system of public services, the impact on people would have been more dramatic. A fair transition means recognising the key role of the local and regional level in delivering high-quality public services. The provision of such services by local and regional authorities must not be restricted by rules under public procurement or state aid law;

12.

notes that the EU is at a turning point where new thinking is possible, and also necessary. It is more important than ever to invest in people’s well-being and to count the benefits of the economy of well-being, which emphasises the balance between the three dimensions of sustainable development — social, economic and environmental. Those dimensions reinforce each other and lay the foundations for a socially just, sustainable and climate-friendly society. Local and regional actors are well-placed to implement the well-being economy in their own activities, but there is also a need for EU-level guidance;

13.

considers public procurement to be another area for contributing towards fair transitions and seeking new innovative solutions, as procurement procedures can help prevent environmental and social dumping through the inclusion in the contract award criteria of qualitative, environmental and/or social aspects. However, as such inclusion remains optional, more needs to be done to encourage economic operators involved in public procurement to offer better overall working conditions as well as jobs that integrate people with complex labour market integration needs or people at risk of social exclusion and poverty, and promote their employability;

14.

emphasises the need for companies, including those involved in public procurement, to explicitly take human rights into account, both in their own activities and in their subcontracting chains; proposes to this effect that corporate liability provisions based on the UN’s principle of human rights due diligence be adopted at EU level;

Equal opportunities and jobs for all

15.

agrees with the Commission’s objective of increasing employment and creating more quality jobs across Europe. A multidisciplinary and proactive approach is needed to remove skills and job imbalances. In the future, demand for skills will increase in the labour market, especially for jobs involving application and development of artificial intelligence (AI), as well as climate change mitigation, adaptation and exploitation. The new EU industrial strategy must support the creation of quality jobs and industrial competitiveness. The strategy must also strengthen Europe’s resilience, for example by increasing the production of key healthcare appliances and protective equipment in the EU. Now that the Europe 2020 strategy is coming to a close, a new EU long-term strategy for growth and employment, in line with the Sustainable Development Goals, is needed in order to tie together the various objectives for inclusive growth, employment, reducing poverty and industrial competitiveness;

16.

observes that particular employment sectors were disproportionally affected by an exposure to the risks of the COVID-19 pandemic, in the first place the health care sector and services. Stresses the importance of properly identifying coronavirus-related occupational risks across sectors of activity and underlines that all workers exposed to such risks not only deserve strong societal appreciation, but also need above all safe working conditions;

17.

points out that the virulence of the pandemic has revealed the shortcomings of the health systems in a large proportion of the countries of the European Union, and that it is therefore necessary to strengthen European healthcare by encouraging and promoting science studies in all sectors, in particular those concerning assistance, care and research;

18.

points out that demographic change in Europe will lead to labour shortages in many Member States and regions. It is therefore important to safeguard cross-border labour mobility and workers’ rights. The problem of skills shortages, especially for small local and regional rural communities, should be rectified through education and new technologies, and by increasing teleworking. Long-term action by the EU is also needed for rural areas;

19.

observes that labour market changes mean there are an increasing number of people at risk of losing their jobs due to outdated skills or robotics. Up-to-date skills and access to lifelong learning are more important than ever. A holistic view must be taken of skills updating over a career by people in different life situations and different employment relationships, and with different educational needs. Given the importance of further training and re-training of people of working age in terms of employability as well as overall workforce competitiveness, and considering the financial implications of such training, the Committee of the Regions would welcome a relevant agreement by the European social partners. Such an agreement could examine how to make it easier for people in employment to access training within the framework of the implementation of the right to quality training and lifelong learning in order to manage successfully transitions in the labour market, as enshrined in the European Pillar;

20.

supports a Youth Guarantee that is remodelled to combat youth unemployment more effectively, by making it permanent and extending the age limit to 30. The guarantee should cover vulnerable groups (such as NEETs, unaccompanied migrant youth and young people raised in difficult circumstances), and there should be a particular focus on measures at the transition from education to work. Funding for the guarantee should be increased under the ESF+, and Member States with youth unemployment above the EU average should allocate at least 15 % of the ESF+ resources under shared management to support young people. Young people should be taught skills relevant to the green and digital transitions in particular. National implementation of the Youth Guarantee should be monitored in the framework of the European semester to ensure that it is accessible to all young people in all the Member States;

21.

believes that high quality, inclusive and mutually recognised education, as well as citizenship education, strengthen European identity and facilitate moving, working and residing freely within the EU, which is a cornerstone of European citizenship. Raising education and skills levels can reduce inequalities. Action is therefore needed to improve equality in education so that educational pathways are not determined by family background, ethnicity, disability or gender;

22.

points to the urgent need to safeguard the right to education and training of all learners by strengthening the crisis resilience of education and training systems, including through the digitalisation of education and appropriate teacher training. Equipment and connectivity for distance learning and e-learning should be considered part of a just transition, and equal access thereto should be ensured with the aim of eradicating the existing digital divide and its complexity and substantial impact on social rights, as lack of access to new technologies and the information society place people at even more of a disadvantage and create new forms of social exclusion;

23.

notes that education will have to be of sufficient quality and duration to guarantee employment in the future. This will call for an increase in resources for, and intensive systematic work on, education in pre-school establishments and pre-primary, primary and basic secondary schools in order to ensure that everybody can acquire adequate basic skills and go on to upper secondary education. People without upper secondary education are very difficult to employ and at high risk of marginalisation. Those needing special support and people with disabilities should have the same opportunities to acquire adequate basic skills and at least an upper secondary education; in order to move towards an inclusive society, people with learning disabilities should be able to acquire soft skills so that they can engage successfully in society and have a higher quality of life;

24.

welcomes the updating of the Skills Agenda for Europe and development of vocational education and training to meet the skills requirements of new professions, in particular those relevant to the green and digital transitions and AI. In addition to occupation-specific skills, employers increasingly need ‘transversal’ or ‘soft’ skills. An individual learning plan must be developed for each student, and they must be given access to quality work placements and support for career planning and performance management. Calls on the Skills Agenda to address concerns regarding the potential loss of jobs that will take place due to the increased robotisation of the labour market, as well as training and employment opportunities for vulnerable groups and groups which are harder to integrate into the labour market, while respecting the principles of equal opportunities and non-discrimination;

25.

recommends that knowledge, skills and competences acquired in employment, as well as those acquired through non-formal education and volunteering, including knowledge and skills acquired abroad, should be identified and recognised at EU level. Skills acquired in the workplace and elsewhere can be shown in a Europass portfolio or digital badges (Open Badge), for example;

26.

is in favour of speeding up the creation of a European Education Area in order to guarantee high-quality education for all and access to the labour market across the European single market. The EU should increase cooperation between education systems and different curricula and further strengthen cooperation within the Bologna Process. Since it is crucial to successful implementation of the Green Deal, a greening of Erasmus+ will also be needed in the post-pandemic period;

27.

believes that the Digital Education Action Plan should focus on strengthening critical thinking and media literacy among adults as well as children and young people, so that they can fend off the deluge of fake news and understand the importance of algorithms and machine-based decision-making in everyday life. Uniform quality criteria should be established for distance learning. Educational platforms commissioned by local authorities for their own needs should be routinely produced under a software licence that allows the commissioning body to develop and distribute the product in accordance with their own needs. This will encourage European digital education ecosystems to develop properly, and the fees paid under the projects will go mainly to regional and local actors and not to operators outside the EU;

28.

considers it important to improve Europe’s competitiveness by promoting a diversity of business models, and therefore supports the Commission’s proposed Action Plan for the Social Economy, whose purpose should be to build confidence after the crisis by involving the public, increase social investment and innovation, and create jobs for people who are more difficult to employ. The European Commission, the Member States, and local and regional authorities should mainstream the social economy dimension in key policies, programmes and practices so that social enterprises are eligible for all major Union funding programmes and have better access to public calls for tender. A sense of local ownership will make social enterprises less inclined to relocate their business operations, since they will also have other local environmental or civic objectives;

29.

considers it important to mainstream the promotion of equality between women and men in all EU policies in order to achieve fair transitions, with particular focus on the inclusion of women in situations of vulnerability (victims of gender-based violence, families with single mothers, etc.). Men and women have also been affected differently by the coronavirus crisis, and this needs to be taken into account in post-crisis action.

Fair working conditions

30.

agrees with the Commission view that fair working conditions require robust social dialogue in which workers and employers can jointly find solutions that best meet their needs. Inclusion of workers is important in maintaining working conditions, and the social partners must therefore be involved in all major EU initiatives, including the European Green Deal. There is a need for dialogue in the workplace about how to reduce the carbon footprint through changes in everyday working and operating practices;

31.

follows closely advances in the Commission’s European minimum wage initiative to promote fair wages and improve minimum wages in low-wage EU countries. Underlines at the same time that any European initiative on minimum wage must not be one-size-fits-all, while wage-setting through collective agreements must be safeguarded in those countries where such a system exists, and the autonomy of the social partners must be respected. Well-functioning collective bargaining and comprehensive collective agreements are the primary method of achieving fair wages and setting other working conditions, as workers and employers know their sector and region best;

32.

awaits the forthcoming Commission proposal on pay transparency measures, which will be an important means of closing the gender pay gap. Equal pay should be promoted through developing legislation and collective agreements, as well as through concrete measures in the workplace. On average, women in the EU earn 16 % less than men, which is reflected in an even greater difference in women’s pensions, and the European Commission’s gender equality strategy is therefore important;

33.

advocates updating the health and safety at work strategy and some directives in respect of issues such as psychosocial stress and ergonomic risks. Well-being at work and meaningful work for employees are also competitive assets in the public sector in terms of securing staff and managing employers’ reputation, and they are factors that allow longer working lives. Particular attention needs to be paid to the prevention of work-related fatal accidents, occupational diseases (including work-related cancer), musculoskeletal disorders, work-induced stress and any kind of harassment because of gender, race, worldview, disabilities or sexual orientation, as well as adequate resources for monitoring. Other matters for consideration are prevention of the health risks posed by cross-border pandemics, as well as new technologies and working patterns. The CoR calls for measures to promote occupational safety, also with respect to cross-border work and new types of jobs and equality between women and men. The impact of climate change on working conditions and on measures to protect workers needs to be taken into account;

34.

notes that new working patterns, such as constant connectivity, teleworking, mobile work, and algorithm-based recruitment and management can increase productivity and flexibility in the workforce, but that joint solutions and agreements between workers and employers on occupational safety are needed here to improve well-being at work and prevent new types of stress triggers. Ever-growing digitalisation of work patterns requires an update of European rules governing working conditions and working time, including provisions to establish the right to disconnect. It also requires positive measures to help groups that are particularly vulnerable to the digital divide (immigrants, people in situations of poverty and social exclusion, ethnic minorities, also addressing the digital divide caused by gender, generational and geographical factors). Alongside technology-driven product development, there should be a focus on developing people-centred methods, services and products that are designed with input from the end-users of systems in the workplace. Principles for the ethical use of AI in the workplace must be agreed and retraining organised in workplaces where activities are transformed or taken over by AI. To this effect, the Committee welcomes the shared commitment of major European cross-sectoral social partners — BusinessEurope, SMEunited, CEEP and the ETUC — to optimise the benefits and deal with the challenges of digitalisation in the world of work, through an Autonomous Framework Agreement on Digitalisation (1);

35.

reiterates that ‘a comprehensive framework is needed to ensure the social protection and social rights of all workers (from health and safety to life-long learning), in order to create a level playing-field for the platform economy and the “traditional” off-line economy’ (2). The CoR calls for measures to promote social dialogue, including on cross-border aspects of platform work;

36.

believes that responsibility for reconciling work and family life should remain with the social partners. Work-life balance measures, such as family leave and childcare schemes for families with single mothers or single parents, can help to increase the employment rate of women as well as the birth rate, and to raise the level of safety, health and well-being, also giving women equal opportunities with regard to labour market access;

Social protection and inclusion

37.

notes the importance of the new SURE instrument, which provides temporary support to Member States to reduce unemployment risks in emergencies. Experience with SURE from the national to the local level must be drawn on when the European Commission develops its proposal for a European Unemployment Benefits Reinsurance Scheme to help reduce the impact of unemployment on Member States’ public finances. Local and regional authorities should play a key role in implementing that initiative;

38.

very much welcomes the focus on promoting children’s welfare and supporting children into adulthood. The Child Guarantee should ensure children’s access to basic services, healthcare, early years education and school until they reach adulthood, and provide them with decent housing and nutrition. It is particularly important that the Child Guarantee protect the rights of the most vulnerable children. The proposal to use at least 5 % of total ESF+ expenditure to help children out of poverty is especially commendable. Safeguarding the rights of the child and investing in children is not only a moral obligation, but also the most critical investment in a sustainable future;

39.

is convinced the European Union has the capacity to positively affect working and environmental conditions in third countries, first and foremost by means of concluding ambitious trade agreements on these aspects. In that context, supports the idea of tasking the new Chief Trade Enforcement Officer (CTEO) to enforce labour and environmental standards in trade agreements. The CTEO should therefore consult regularly with trade unions and employers on violations of labour rights;

40.

shares the Commission’s view about the importance of continuing to actively combat poverty. Key aspects of this are support for job-seeking, quality and affordable health care, access to education and training, housing, and addressing basic needs. Indebtedness may also lead to persistent poverty and exclusion. Rules should therefore be tightened around marketing and unfair terms associated with short-term high-risk consumer credit. Good practices in the Member States, e.g. on social lending, should also be implemented. Prevention of in-work poverty is a particular issue which can be addressed through adequate wages and other labour standards, and also by controlling cost of living increases, above all of the cost of housing, in cities and growth centres. National income schemes and related support services for inactive people provide the final resource for ensuring decent living conditions. The Commission also importantly highlights the new challenges relating to distribution of income posed by the transition to a carbon-neutral economy. The CoR agrees with looking at the causes of poverty and policies to address it, and encourages effective measures and a strategy to significantly reduce poverty;

41.

recognises that ageing challenges the sustainability of systems, but points out that it also opens up opportunities for new economic activities. Older people can make a significant contribution to economic growth as independent and active consumers of services and as members of society. In the context of extending people’s working lives, it is important to make use of older workers’ knowledge and also to enhance their professional skills. Healthy ageing must be supported by actions to promote health, prevent disease and fight loneliness; well-being at work, general health, and resilience at work must also be improved to ensure that longer lifespans also lead to longer working lives. Ensuring access to affordable and quality long-term care is essential to sustain a decent life in old age. To delay the need for long-term care and shorten its duration, older people’s functional capacity must be improved and preventive services, as well as active ageing measures, made available. Pensioner poverty must be prevented, and the best way of doing this is to ensure adequate pensions, guaranteeing everyone’s right to have in old age the resources that ensure living in dignity, while also taking into account the significant gender pension gap. The Commission’s report on the impact of demographic change, as well as the Green Paper on ageing, will be welcome here;

42.

stresses the importance of access to affordable healthcare. Investing in preventive measures and timely healthcare can contain healthcare spending. The development of digital services, as well as new and integrated health and social service models, will also allow cost-effective and patient/customer-centred processes. One area where social and health services come together is mental health, where providing a service as early as possible generally prevents problems from worsening and costs from increasing. The Commission’s proposal for a European cancer plan is welcome. It should also be noted that antimicrobial drug resistance (AMR) is a major cross-border health threat, and that the EU must therefore continue taking action to reduce antibiotic resistance in the Member States;

43.

emphasises that biodiversity and the environment should be supported and protected, as they have a particular impact on local development in areas whose economies are more dependent on agricultural activities and the value and resources of the biocultural environment and biodiversity. This is very important from a social point of view, as it has a direct impact on living standards, employment, migration and the level of education, vocational training and opportunities for young people in these areas;

44.

points out that promoting well-being goes hand-in-hand with strengthening the local and regional identity of municipalities, the empowerment of both individuals and communities, and the promotion of active inclusion. For transitions to be truly fair, people should have equal opportunities to participate and influence the decisions that affect them.

---

(1)  https://www.businesseurope.eu/sites/buseur/files/media/reports_and_studies/2020-06-22_agreement_on_digitalisation_-_with_signatures.pdf.

(2)  CoR Opinion on ‘Platform work — local and regional regulatory challenges’ (COR-2019-02655).

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions – Local and regional authorities in the permanent dialogue with citizens

(2020/C 440/09)

Rapporteur: Declan MCDONNELL (IE/EA), Member of Galway City Council Reference document: Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Europe in May 2019: Preparing for a more united, stronger and more democratic Union in an increasingly uncertain world. The European Commission’s contribution to the informal EU27 leaders’ meeting in Sibiu (Romania) on 9 May 2019 COM(2019) 218 final

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Preamble

1.

Reiterates the importance of understanding and reporting citizens’ and local and regional representatives’ perceptions and expectations of the EU, of anchoring EU policies locally to make a difference to people’s lives and of building our union from the bottom up, as outlined in its opinion on Reflecting on Europe: the voice of local and regional authorities to rebuild trust in the European Union (1); believes that the way forward for an EU democratic revival must build on grassroots engagement over and beyond current measures;

2.

Believes that bottom-up communication channels and participation instruments complement and strengthen representative democracy, as well as promote active subsidiarity, by giving citizens a greater say beyond and between elections; is convinced that transparent, serious and relevant citizen engagement means a shared role and thus practical participation for citizens in decision-making, and regards formal communication alone as insufficient in this case. Genuine participation increases the legitimacy and effectiveness of representative democracy by (1) increasing communication to prevent conflict, (2) enabling consensus creation and, above all (3) strengthening the power of the decisions made and explaining the rationale for decisions;

3.

Shares the views expressed in the European Commission’s contribution to the informal EU27 leaders’ meeting in Sibiu (2), notably a whole reflection on communication challenges, including fragmentation and disinformation; is aware that communication is a precondition for citizens to make informed choices and participate fully in EU democracy;

4.

Stresses that European institutions must commit to working more closely and cooperating with citizens, in order to increase understanding of European policy-making, improve the efficiency and efficacy of such policy-making and avoid the shortcuts that populism proposes, and that inevitably undermine the proper functioning of democracy;

5.

States its determination to open two-way channels of communication between European institutions and European citizens, focusing on people’s everyday problems and that fosters citizen engagement in European policy-making. The COVID-19 pandemic has further shown that there is a need for a channel of communication that can remain operational in spite of and particularly during times of crises;

6.

Recognises that the COVID-19 pandemic has encouraged the use of digital media and online conference systems and sees the opportunities that digitalisation offers for civic engagement in times of crisis; in recent months, civic engagement has shifted to digital forums and conferences; these have helped citizens to participate more quickly, widely and inclusively in decision-making;

7.

Welcomes the upcoming Conference on the Future of Europe (CoFoE) and supports the European Parliament’s call, outlined in its resolution of 18 June 2020, to include in the CoFoE’s mandate a commitment to meaningful follow-up and the meaningful direct involvement of citizens and its position that ‘the direct engagement of citizens, civil society organisations, social partners and elected representatives must remain a priority of the Conference’;

8.

Stresses that the CoFoE should not be just a one-off fixed-duration process but an opportunity to rethink and reform the way the EU functions and is perceived by its citizens; therefore wishes to propose a mechanism for a permanent dialogue with citizens which could be tested during the Conference but would aim to introduce a long-term structural mechanism for citizen participation in EU policy-making, led by local and regional authorities, as the level of government closest to citizens and including a clear feedback mechanism;

9.

Reiterates its call to the Commission, expressed in its Resolution in view of the European Commission Work Programme for 2021 (3) to ‘cooperate with the CoR in developing a pilot model for a permanent and structured dialogue with citizens through local and regional authorities, allowing a two-way process of communication between citizens and EU institutions which could serve later on to improve EU decision-making in the long-run’;

10.

Insists that in all public consultations related to the citizens’ dialogues should ensure maximum pluralism; stresses that this means that all programmes, speakers lists, panels, literature and documents, etc. must be balanced and ensure that a great variety of differing viewpoints is presented, reflecting the diversity of opinions in Europe, in order to stimulate a profound debate. Emphasises that the selection of participants in all such meetings must be made completely independently and without any political interference;

Local and Regional Authorities as bridge builders between citizens and EU institutions

11.

Shares the concern that European institutions might appear as physically and — even more so — culturally far from the daily lives of European citizens; calls on representative institutions like regional and local government, especially those that are not currently involved in citizens’ engagement mechanisms, to play an active role in establishing efficient and meaningful communication channels with citizens for the design and implementation of demand-driven EU policies, but stresses that this must be done in a way that respects citizens’ time and produces results;

12.

Invites local and regional authorities from across the EU to play a central role in educating citizens about the EU, to encourage citizens to play a role in participatory democracy. It is recognised that citizens can only engage if innovative methods are used and if citizens are fully informed about the implications of policy developments and/or funding decisions for their local area. The use of digital technologies and social media as well as working with voluntary organisations are encouraged; points to successful recruitment approaches, such as those involving citizens selected randomly by telephone, from the population register or by means of a door-to-door conversation, with a view to reaching a much wider cross-section of the population;

The CitizEN Network — Citizen ENgagement in the EU Network — an ecosystem of citizen participation

13.

Proposes the setting-up of a pan-EU network based on voluntary participation – CitizEN, to act as a central resource for strategies, methodologies and instruments and to communicate both directly and indirectly, via existing initiatives with citizens across the EU on European issues and their impact on people;

14.

Recognises, notwithstanding, that there are many deliberative and participatory mechanisms active across most Member States and regions and therefore suggests that the CitizEN Network take cognisance and build on the good practice that already exists. The Network would therefore facilitate inter-regional dialogue and consistency between institutions to ensure a coherent approach, whilst respecting the diversity of approaches in different political and social realities;

15.

Invites the Network to include member organisations at the regional (mainly NUTS2, but also NUTS1 or NUTS3 depending on national organisations) and city level which already operate citizen engagement, as well as voluntary organisations active at the local and regional level, which involve a wide spectrum of interests;

16.

Expects the Network to have three objectives: (1) to strengthen interaction between European institutions and citizens, through direct methods for engagement at local and regional level, (2) provide examples of participation methods that can be used both formally and informally, and (3) act as a repository for information and sharing of best practice of national, regional and local participation initiatives from across the European Union;

17.

Is willing to design a set of common principles for the Network that are non-binding but serve to act as guidelines for good practice, for building a common approach (whilst recognising different methods) and for establishing a set of minimum standards for participating organisations;

18.

Suggests that the Network be organised with thematic working groups, which will consist of the member organisations based around a number of overarching themes (such as: participatory budgeting, digital citizenship, inclusivity in citizen engagement) as well as thematic issues such as: climate change, social cohesion, environment, sport, culture, youth, education, urban and rural organisations and the arts;

19.

Suggests that the Network identify, coordinate and deploy a common training strategy on citizen participation. Local and regional authorities, as well as public and private bodies, would be encouraged to take part in training initiatives, to enable public officers and local leaders to fully engage with citizens and contribute to leveraging the enormous potential of citizen participation. It will also be important to engage with schools and educational institutions to ensure that active European citizenship becomes part of the curriculum across the EU;

20.

Is willing to lead, in collaboration with all other European institutions, on the design, implementation and governance of the Network, working to promote a common working methodology and the deployment of a toolbox of participation instruments (deliberation processes, citizen initiatives, participatory budgeting, government crowdsourcing processes, mini-publics, etc.) including a shared digital platform that can be used to manage best practice examples which will be gathered from different Member States;

21.

Requests resources to be made available to operate the network for a limited period of time, whilst the network seeks permanent funding or technical assistance from EU funding programmes;

22.

Expects the Network to promote and increase the visibility of the citizens’ engagement practices of the participating regions which in turn should ensure higher levels of active participation;

23.

Suggests that the Network could assist organisations to ensure trust is built with citizens so that they receive feedback on the impact of their work in shaping EU policy; would therefore propose that the CoR act as an intermediary between the Network, its members and EU institutions, serving as a two-way channel;

24.

Suggests that the Network be launched during the CoFoE, with a view to becoming a stable and permanent infrastructure able to carry on with the follow-up on the work of the CoFoE and ensuring that citizens are kept well informed and can be involved in the monitoring, evaluation and assessment phases of the CoFoE;

An ecosystem for citizens’ participation

25.

Believes that efforts should be made by all member organisations in the Network, as well as local and regional authorities, to interact with citizens in non-formal and informal ways, using non-conventional participation spaces (such as sporting clubs) and practices; to design participation devices that make it possible to ‘go where the citizens gather’ instead of ‘asking them to come’ and enable ways to adapt informal participation to formal policy-making; to create strategies so that institutions participate in informal settings without undermining or de-naturalising them. Such devices and strategies can contribute to a new participation toolbox that ranges from active listening on social media to social innovation methodologies and living labs for democratic experimentation. This is especially important for citizens that are underrepresented in democratic institutions (ethnic minorities, people with disabilities, young people, older people);

26.

Expects, thus, that this ecosystem of participation methods would continually work to complement the institutional, official channels of communication and representation of European democratic institutions. It would not aim to substitute representative democracy but rather to enrich it with the instruments and means of deliberative democracy and, sometimes, direct democracy;

27.

Highlights that citizens are moving towards new formats of political engagement — technopolitics — which has been brought about by digital technologies and open data. This allows for participation to take place in informal spaces and outside of the normal formalised settings. This new means of engagement should be embraced by political institutions to encourage an ecosystem of engagement;

28.

Believes that the use of online platforms is crucial to the management of the types of participation methods; to enable participants from all over the EU regardless of social origin to take part in debates; and to ensure traceability and accountability of the proposals in an easy and accessible way. Digital technologies should complement face-to-face participation methods and should be used to encourage participation among citizens who do not feel represented by civil society organisations or citizens who do not normally participate through traditional participatory instruments;

29.

Assumes that this participation ecosystem should have clear support from public administrations at all levels and also be flexible enough to promote new and innovative ways of citizen engagement, enabling the use of digital technology tools that facilitate multilingual dialogue with citizens;

30.

Expects transnational solidarity between more advanced regions in the field of citizen participation helping less advanced ones to help to become involved in a Europe-wide ecosystem, by contributing knowledge and initiative; and that an EU ecosystem would respect the autonomy of Member States, regions and cities, while being flexible enough to be adapted to cultural, social and political needs and priorities;

Citizen dialogues during the Conference on the Future of Europe

31.

Calls for information, communication and engagement strategies between the European institutions and citizens during the CoFoE to run via the appropriate local and regional representative bodies, in conjunction with civil society organisations;

32.

Encourages regional and local organisations to run participatory processes during the CoFoE at their respective levels, using a mix of open deliberative processes. The proposals and results of the deliberative processes can then be summarised and fed into the CoR’s contribution to the CoFoE as well as help build the Network’s repository of knowledge and experience in communicating with citizens;

33.

Promotes transnational civic engagement in the CoFoE, as the debate must have a cross-border and pan-European dimension; it requires a forum of citizens from across Europe to engage transnationally, to address common problems;

Towards a new approach to policy- and decision-making

34.

Is, indeed, convinced that, by increasing citizen participation and leveraging the potential of citizens in active policy-making, open government is one of the answers to a crisis of democratic institutions;

35.

Considers that transparency and open data are a must for trust. Administrations should strengthen the link between participation policies and transparency strategies and open data, and work towards the openness of all resources and policy- and decision-making public goods: data, information, methodologies, training resources and technological platforms;

36.

Expects the creation of criteria for open government at EU level that are appropriate for all other government levels;

37.

Local and regional authorities are the only authorities that know best the citizens’ needs and challenges on local level and are responsible for the implementation of EU policies on local and regional level. Therefore, there is a need for EU regulations to include requirements toward Member States to not only consult and involve LRAs into EU and national legislation related decision-making process, but to delegate funds’ and financial instruments’ management, based on the principle of subsidiarity. This can ensure that decisions taken closer to citizens shall allow citizens to better understand the EU. In conclusion, this would allow for a new approach to policy- and decision-making, which is more open, more participative, led by local and regional authorities in a more permanent dialogue with citizens: in short, a new common European political and democratic culture.

---

(1)  CoR 2018/C 461/02 (OJ C 461, 21.12.2018, p. 5).

(2)  COM(2019) 218 final.

(3)  RESOL-VII/007 (OJ C 324, 1.10.2020, p. 16).

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions – The role of the EU’s cohesion policy with respect to intelligent and innovative economic change in the regions against the backdrop of the coronavirus crisis

(2020/C 440/10)

Rapporteur: Michiel RIJSBERMAN (NL/RE), Regional Minister of the Province of Flevoland

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Introduction

1.

Appreciates the German presidency invitation for the CoR to express an opinion on the role of cohesion policy with respect to intelligent and innovative economic change in the regions against the backdrop of the coronavirus crisis;

2.

Takes note of the German presidency priority for a stronger and more innovative Europe and its assertion that the EU Structural Funds are important elements for cushioning the economic and social repercussions of the COVID-19 pandemic and for stimulating economic recovery in the regions;

The fundamental role of regions in fighting the post-pandemic economic crisis

3.

Notes that following the outbreak of coronavirus, all European regions have adopted broad preventive and economic response measures. These actions were primarily addressed to health, social services, public transport, educational systems and working capital for SMEs. But moving towards longer-term policies, the importance of broad innovation and application of innovations increases. Innovative concepts are needed for a transition to a more sustainable, digital and resilient Europe and these are all elements where cohesion policy can play its part;

4.

Stresses that the regions have important competences in the area of economic policy and business support, including support for innovation and applied research. Regions can contribute to economic change, with their role in promoting R & D, key technologies, harnessing of networks and clusters, support for changes in business model or even upscaling of new technologies. Also, as a ‘launching customer’, cities and regions can accelerate a sustainable transition, exchanging experiences among each other;

5.

Recommends that, as far as possible, ordinary structures and organisations should be used to address the impact of COVID-19 on business and employment. The regions have a key role to play in conveying information about regional and sub-regional disparities and how needs are affected by those disparities. This information may be crucial for both national support packages and EU initiatives aimed at the business community in different regions;

6.

Reiterates that local and regional authorities are best placed to assess the investment needs at a territorial level and should be fully associated with decisions on [re]programming investment under REACT-EU, the implementation of the Recovery and Resilience Facility and the implementation of the European SME and Industrial strategies;

7.

Calls for the central role of the regions in this work to be strengthened. Given the effects of the crisis, this may include boosting regions’ capacity to coordinate, initiate and implement extraordinary measures in the short and medium term to make a sustainable fresh start in the Member States, based on needs and circumstances in each region. Using analysis, monitoring and evaluation, regions can make informed decisions on development activities that can contribute to a sustainable fresh start. One key task for regions should be to gather important regional information and pass it on to the national level;

8.

Foresees that cooperation within regional partnerships under the smart specialisation platform will play an important role in the economic recovery. Interregional cooperation in research and innovation is going to be a key element for recovery as well as for a green and digital transition which leaves no places and people behind;

9.

Is concerned about the loss of capacity for intelligent and innovative economic change at a regional level post-COVID-19 not only due to loss of resources in the aftermath of the COVID-19 crisis but also as a consequence of a ten-year period of austerity. To reverse this, more resources need to be transferred to the local and regional level. At the same time, regional efficiency will need to be enhanced, requiring regions to innovate at all levels and be open to learning and sharing knowledge;

10.

Welcomes the European financial support (from REACT-EU) for cities and regions to help the sectors which have suffered the most under COVID-19 to move towards sustainable business models in both the short term and the medium term;

11.

Acknowledges that the decline in some sectors and changing working behaviour may necessitate revision and adaptation of urban spatial plans, to reflect the reduced need for city centre office space and shops, in conjunction with a re-organisation of public transport (mode, frequency and funding). In cities this will mean an increased emphasis on walking and cycling. Welcomes in this respect, the increasing ambition in many cities to considerably reduce car traffic by adjusting traffic rules and road design in favour of pedestrians and cyclists;

12.

Highlights the need to give greater prominence to the European Social Fund as a key tool for social investment. People are at the heart of any investment policy and are a crucial aspect of economic recovery;

Cohesion policy as a pivotal tool for intelligent and innovative economic change in regions

13.

Underlines that cohesion policy is the EU’s largest funding mechanism for investment in all regions with an increased emphasis on innovation as a driver of growth. Its implementation encourages more efficient spending of public funds through improved administrative and institutional capacity;

14.

Appreciates that the European institutions promptly reacted to the emergency and presented an unprecedented amount of resources to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic, combining cohesion- funded measures in the classical Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) to offer a long-term perspective, and a specific recovery effort under Next Generation EU (NGEU) to address short term effects of the crisis;

15.

Strongly recommends that the temporary nature of some of the proposed reinforcements of cohesion policy, particularly on the missing thematic concentration, should not undermine goals of cohesion policy and its system of shared management based on agreed principles. Flexibility is needed in times of crisis, but too much flexibility can threaten the existence of cohesion policy in the longer term;

16.

Appreciates that overall cuts to cohesion policy were avoided, because it is Europe’s main financial instrument to recover from the economic crisis. However, finds it unacceptable that the long-term EU budget is cut to record low ceilings with an overall amount proposed for commitments of EUR 1 074,3 billion;

17.

Underlines that the Structural Funds will become even more important for future investments for a socially-just, greener, more competitive, digital and inclusive Union, given the cuts to other EU programmes, such as Horizon, InvestEU, LIFE and Erasmus+;

18.

Is pleased to see that REACT-EU combines two targets in a new thematic objective; crisis recovery on the one hand and the preparation for a green, digital and resilient economy on the other hand. In this way, REACT-EU has added value to act as a transitional arrangement between programming periods. It can also speed up much needed public investments for the green and digital transition;

19.

Recommends, therefore, a minimum thematic concentration for REACT-EU objectives for a green, digital and resilient economy, to ensure that not all funds are spent on crisis repair only and spendings are still in line with the overall EU’s goal to achieve climate neutrality by 2050. This will also help speed up transition from emergency response to new programming period investments. It is important to make sure that investments are well founded in this European strategy to avoid ‘throwing money at the economy’ without a clear purpose;

20.

Underlines the role of the ESIF for the economic transformation of regions that want to lower emissions and go digital, or the so-called fourth industrial revolution. The European Regional Development Fund is a catalyst for stimulating intelligent and innovative economic change, because of its thematic concentration on the policy objectives of ‘a smarter and greener Europe’ and the types of investment it supports;

21.

Notes that cohesion policy plays a crucial role in addressing the growing digital divide. The accelerated use of digitalisation as seen during lockdowns is likely to stay and will further contribute to social innovation. More emphasis will be needed on developing digital skills which should be an integral part of a resilience strategy and on adapting education systems and equipping schools with digital technology;

22.

Reiterates the fundamental aim of cohesion policy, which is to strengthen economic, social and territorial cohesion between regions within the European Union and pay particular attention to regions that require special attention because of severe, structural, natural and demographic handicaps. These regions face greater difficulties in providing their inhabitants with access to services that have proved vital during the pandemic, such as health services and digital infrastructure, and which will be key to achieving Europe’s priorities for the climate, digital development and growth;

23.

Acknowledges that cohesion policy will play an increasingly important role in supporting the ongoing economic reform process by Member States by strengthening the link to the European semester. Stresses in this respect the urgency for a deep reform of the European Semester and the EU’s economic governance towards a transparent, inclusive and democratic process. If the European Semester remains unreformed, cohesion policy is at risk of becoming more and more centralised, a top-down approach of the recovery plans and the return to policies which take no account of economic, social and territorial cohesion among and within Member States and hamper the urgently needed public investment for the EU’s sustainable recovery. The Commission should therefore ensure that regions are involved by Member States during the entire national semester process and make sure that the financing of country-specific recommendations with cohesion policy funding has a clear place-based dimension;

24.

Calls on all European leaders for a timely start to 2021-2027 cohesion policy programmes to avoid a funding gap between the two programming periods;

The crucial role of SMEs and industries for Europe’s innovative economic recovery

25.

Agrees with the presidency that a competitive European industrial sector and vibrant small and medium-sized enterprises are essential for mastering the digital and environmental transformation. The European industrial and SME strategies should therefore be rooted in a place-based approach and promote cooperation in innovative key technologies across European regions to enhance Europe’s competitive advantage;

26.

Supports, to this end, the development of recommendations for suitable framework conditions and the broad implementation of forward-looking innovations, as well as measures relating to financing, a substantial reduction in red tape, and SME-friendly regulations and innovative cross-border approaches to strengthening entrepreneurship, the digital transformation and innovation;

27.

Points out that access to finance and liquidity support for SMEs via EU grants and schemes and national measures is necessary to allow companies to bridge liquidity gaps caused by the crisis. Emergency measures should be complemented with instruments that allow the financing of investments and innovation, notably in digital technologies;

28.

Maintains that counselling aids must be expanded (especially for the self-employed and the unemployed) and the reaction time to SMEs’ changing demands quickened. Public authorities should take a bottom-up, needs-based approach. Upskilling programmes in digital technologies and digital literacy should be prioritised;

Just Transition Fund

29.

Rejects the obligatory use of the ERDF as JTF co-funding because it can threaten cohesion policy objectives, including the thematic concentration spending for innovations (under PO 1). As the JTF is geographically targeted, co-financing with the ERDF should be optional;

30.

Reiterates that any transfer of regional funds, JTF co-financing included, by a Member State should be decided with the consent of the local and regional partners involved, in line with the principles of partnership and multilevel government;

Short term strategies must have a stronger regional dimension, true simplification and accessible synergies with long-term policies

31.

Welcomes the Commission’s swift action to put in place essential investments under the CRII packages. The reduced administrative burden and flexibility offered by these packages, contribute to the absorption of regional funds for the period 2014-2020 where it is needed;

32.

Calls on the Commission to ensure that recent measures to increase flexibility and to further simplify cohesion policy at EU level do not lead to centralisation and gold-plating and an added administrative burden at national level, brought about by risk avoidance and a risk-regulation reflex by Member States;

33.

Calls for further clarity about the interplay between the different new mechanisms, such as REACT-EU, the Just Transition Fund, and the Recovery and Resilience Facility, to avoid additional complexity and stricter national regulations being added by the Member States;

34.

Asks the Commission to make sure that a shift of power away from regions is avoided. The proposed Recovery and Resilience Facility should be channelled through a bottom-up approach, by adding regional allocation criteria to REACT-EU and the Recovery and Resilience Facility, and by a stronger involvement of local and regional authorities in the governance of instruments, in particular in the preparation of national recovery investment plans. The delivery of the Recovery and Resilience Facility through centralised programmes bears the risk of lacking legitimacy and efficiency because they are adopted without any partnership requirements and therefore might not take into account the real recovery needs from a territorial perspective;

Speeding up recovery and smooth transition

35.

Welcomes the Council invitation to the Commission to provide proposals, before the October European Council, on how to accelerate and facilitate procedures in Member States for swift deployment of recovery support. It is important to create the right conditions for rapid implementation of investment projects, particularly in infrastructure;

36.

Agrees with provisions that allow for rapid reimbursement and simplified access to the additional resources, notably the final date of eligibility and the proposed timeframe of two years, 2021 and 2022 to spend 70 % of the grants, however stresses the importance of retaining the possibility to allow the Member States to also use the additional resources in 2023 and 2024, beyond the European Commission 2022 deadline;

37.

Urges Member States to follow the Commission proposal to make use of existing management structures in order to speed up implementation and guarantee the involvement of local and regional authorities according to the partnership principle;

38.

Urges the Council to take a decision on the final allocation of REACT-EU as soon as possible to encourage rapid implementation of crucial investment for cities and regions. Even a decision on 19 October would already be late for regions to prepare programmes;

General recommendations for cohesion policy in the 2021-2027 programming period

39.

Recommends that local and regional authorities clearly define medium- and long-term development strategies based both on predicted trends and challenges and on the specific features of their territories;

40.

Underlines that regional development and smart specialisation strategies are an important tool to ensure that individual sectoral tools have synergies and complement each other and that stakeholders are adequately involved, in line with the place-based approach to economic, social and territorial development;

41.

Points out that it is important for all levels of governance (EU, national, regional and local levels) to work together, and for the subnational levels to be given enough opportunities and funds to take responsibility for their own development potential;

42.

Asks the Commission to ensure that the key legal framework and principles of cohesion policy is respected, with elements such as thematic concentration, ex-ante conditionalities, multilevel governance, partnership, solidarity, the rule of law and a place-based dimension when going back to ‘normal’. These principles have proven to be suited to rapidly and flexibly addressing challenges so no city or region is left behind;

43.

Stands firmly by the European Parliament’s insistence on an EU mechanism to protect democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights; calls for this mechanism to uphold all fundamental EU values, including the respect for human dignity and human rights, freedom and equality, in every Member State, region and municipality, and to guarantee that any sanction applies to the relevant level of governance;

44.

Recommends that smart specialisation strategies be broadened beyond R&I with a wider focus on economic, social, and environmental objectives and with increased attention on future resilience. PO1 (a smarter Europe) provides a basis for innovation investments that goes beyond economic transformation and serves broader economic, social, and environmental goals (e.g. the Green Deal);

45.

Considers, therefore, the lowering of the minimum spending for innovative and smart industrial transformation under ERDF Policy Objective 1 regrettable. The absence of a PO1 thematic concentration for the most developed regions is worrying in this light, because innovation in these regions can drive the European economy;

46.

Supports the continuation of valorisation in the ERDF Operational Programmes 2021-2027 under PO1. It is still necessary to invest in the phases between applied research and bringing innovations to the market, both with financing in the form of capital as well as grants. The focus should be on the creation of new value chains;

47.

Regrets the Council’s decision to scrap both a mid-term technical review of cohesion policy allocations in 2024 and the possible addition of another EUR 10 billion to the cohesion policy envelope, without any Member State losing parts of their allocations. This is deplorable because the review is envisaged to take account of the impact of the crisis; a significant number of regions will likely experience a sharp fall in GDP per capita and could thus be entitled to higher allocations under a mid-term review;

48.

Asks the EU to refrain from further measures, as proposed by the Council, to ensure the collection and comparability of information on the final beneficiaries of EU funding for the purposes of control and audit. Final beneficiaries should not be burdened with additional audits;

The added value of territorial cooperation, regional ecosystems, smart specialisation and innovative interregional investments in promoting economic recovery

49.

Highlights the importance of European territorial cooperation to help overcome the damaging effects of the crisis and to accelerate economic recovery and calls for funding to be allocated for cross-border cooperation projects;

50.

Regrets therefore, that the funding allocated to the ETC objective is reduced compared to the Commission’s proposal from May 2018, not to mention 2014-2020 levels. Thus the budget proposed for ETC is ostensibly inadequate vis-à-vis the growing and multiple challenges facing cross-border areas in the light of the COVID-19 crisis. Likewise, it is regrettable that the Council’s agreement envisages halving the budget for interregional innovative investments (also known as ‘component 5’);

51.

Asks the Commission to further promote regional ecosystems and clusters in the framework of Interregional Innovation Investments. The combination of technological, industrial and social infrastructure in different regions according to their strengths and skills helps to generate critical mass and economies of scale and thus has the potential to increase the efficiency of research and innovation systems;

52.

Asks the Commission to consider the integration of regional smart specialisation strategies that contribute to a green, digital and resilient Europe as an enabling condition for effective (national) recovery investment plans;

53.

Proposes initiating an ongoing political dialogue between all levels of government on the synergies of the different COVID-19 measures with cohesion policy instruments as part of the Trio Programme of Germany, Portugal and Slovenia.

Opinion of the European Committee of the Regions – SME Strategy

(2020/C 440/11)

Rapporteur: Eddy VAN HIJUM (NL/EPP), Member of the Council of Overijssel province Reference documents: Annual report on European SMEs. Research & Development and Innovation by SMEs Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. An SME Strategy for a sustainable and digital Europe COM(2020) 103 final

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

1.

recognises the importance of small and medium-sized enterprises in the EU economy, as they account for 99,8 % of all companies in the non-financial business sector, two thirds of total employment, and 56,4 % of the total value added generated by the non-financial business sector (1);

2.

understands that the transition to a sustainable and digital economy cannot take place without the commitment of the entrepreneurs and business families who own and manage the 25 million SMEs in Europe and underlines the need to help SMEs grasp new opportunities, respond robustly to a changing business environment and, in so doing, create sustainable growth and jobs and strengthen Europe’s long-term competitiveness in these transitions;

3.

supports the EU in promoting a level playing field for SMEs by reducing the regulatory burden, improving access to the Single Market and increasing the availability of financial services;

4.

emphasises that the region or municipality is the natural habitat of SMEs, which functions as an ecosystem where SMEs engage in networks tying them to their supportive infrastructure, including labour markets, educational and research institutes, buyers and suppliers, financial and business services, chambers of commerce and industry and local and regional authorities;

5.

warmly welcomes, therefore, the Commission’s 10 March 2020 communication An SME Strategy for a sustainable and digital Europe, and shares its stated objectives of reducing the administrative and regulatory burden for SMEs, improving the access to finance, as well as its commitment to encouraging SMEs to engage in the transition to sustainability and digitalisation;

6.

realises that since the presentation of the SME Strategy, the world has changed significantly. The economic fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic is expected to strongly impact all regions and SMEs in Europe. But the crisis should also be seen as an historic opportunity to align the economic recovery with the standards of the Green Deal, sustainability and digitalisation, which must be integral to any SME strategy. A recovery plan for SMEs must be delivered with local and regional authorities in the lead, to be responsive to the diverse needs of SMEs and the varying economic and institutional conditions across Europe. EU recovery measures will be most efficient if synchronised with regional and national initiatives and compatible with local ecosystems. Coordination and an exchange of best practice is therefore crucial;

Addressing all SMEs

7.

believes, therefore, that the SME Strategy, despite including relevant priorities and measures, lacks a vison to fully address the diverse needs of SMEs. Such a vision should place strong emphasis on ensuring a level playing field for SMEs in a completed and deepened Single Market and should encourage integration and complementarity between measures on all levels of government, including a strong regional dimension to ensure a place-based approach tailored to the needs of local SMEs;

8.

shares the Commission’s view on diversity amongst SMEs, but believes, however, that this diversity is insufficiently operationalised in the proposed measures. The strategy of the Commission primarily focuses on start-ups, scale-ups and high-tech SMEs. Although these groups are crucial for growth and innovation, this does not mean that traditional and family firms are passive followers;

9.

deplores the Commission’s characterisation of ‘traditional firms’, when referring to the established and embedded SMEs, the ‘grown-ups’ of the SME community. These embedded firms will be a stabilising force for local economies and communities in the current crisis and create long-term sustainable growth;

10.

recognises the strong links between SMEs and their host regions; especially the grown-ups which are locally embedded and strive for long-term survival. Often, but not always, these firms are family-owned and are more inclined to take social responsibility, because their social capital is tied to their local reputation. Their owners, managers and employees can become ambassadors for the sustainability transition and participate in structural collaborations with regional and local authorities;

11.

urges the Commission to develop policies addressing the needs of family businesses in Europe, including succession and transgenerational entrepreneurship. Even though family businesses play an important role in our economy, policymakers pay them scant attention. This blind spot remains despite the recent remarks of President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, and earlier initiatives.

12.

stresses that family-owned firms are the most common enterprise, accounting for around 70 % of all firms in Europe (2). The ownership structure defines, to a large extent, how and by whom an SME is managed, as well as the business and investment strategy of the firm. This ownership perspective, however, is largely missing within existing SME policies;

13.

calls upon the Commission to continue and expand the support of statistical surveys in the Competitiveness of SMEs programme (COSME). To enable researchers and statistical agencies to fully capture the diverse ownership structures of Europe’s SMEs and analyse important international and interregional differences. In this regards, considers it necessary to ensure that data is collected in a way that takes into account gender issues;

14.

highlights that family firms are disproportionally concentrated in regions close to the European average in terms of gross domestic product and that these regions are facing a ‘middle-income trap’ (3). According to the seventh Report on Cohesion, growth has been slower in these middle-income regions, compared to leading regions and regions coming from a disadvantaged position;

15.

stresses that SME policies should place more priority on involving established SMEs and addressing their needs including adaptation to new technologies, business transfers, internationalisation, access to finance and professionalisation of management and reporting. Existing one-stop-shops strongly embedded in regional ecosystems should be used as access points for providing locally accessible services for SMEs, including advice on a wide range of programmes, measures and funding instruments originating from the EU, national and regional level;

16.

invests in strong regional ecosystems to be firmly connected on a European level by international knowledge exchange between SMEs and between regional governments, in particular by means of interregional investment in innovation. Welcomes the smart specialisation strategies and initiatives such as the S3 Platform, the Vanguard Initiative and various collaboration projects among the European Entrepreneurial Regions (EER), which have proven their value and deserve continued support, including the establishment of a specific financing framework to drive them;

Capacity building for digitalisation and sustainability

17.

notes the Commission’s plan to strengthen the European Resource Efficiency Knowledge Centre and the plan to appoint dedicated sustainability advisers within the Enterprise Europe Network (EEN);

18.

is concerned that these European initiatives are not anchored within the regional infrastructure for SMEs. A positive exception is the Commission’s support of a dense network of up to 240 Digital Innovation Hubs (DIH);

19.

highlights that SMEs active in the ICT sector can function as digital enablers in a regional setting by facilitating the growing group of digitally dependent SMEs. The digitalHUB Aachen is an example of such an initiative (4); calls for promoting the creation of more SME Alliances for Artificial Intelligence in strategic value chains;

20.

urges SMEs to operate in a more energy-efficient way, reduce their energy consumption, boost the production and use of renewable energy and embrace a circular production process in order to reduce costs and build a competitive and sustainable economy. However, SMEs, and micro-enterprises, should not incur a disproportionate share of the costs associated with the sustainability transition, nor should SMEs be exposed to unfair competition from third countries with lower environmental standards. In this regard, considers that a carbon border adjustment mechanism should be foreseen to make sure that there will be no unfair competition from third countries;

21.

emphasises that the human capital agenda for SMEs, including programmes for green and digital skills, should not only be catered to workers but also to entrepreneurs, owners and managers, calls for the Commission’s revised Skills Agenda for Europe to adequately take account of these concerns. These entrepreneurs, owners and managers do not only decide on strategic priorities, but also shape the learning environment within their firms;

22.

proposes that training take place in a peer-to-peer setting with a mediating role for the regional triple helix infrastructure. It is of crucial importance that entrepreneurs, owners, managers and employees of SMEs have access to lifelong learning programmes at universities, vocational schools, other vocational training institutions and field labs. A comprehensive human capital agenda for SMEs that also factors in gender issues can strengthen both highly innovative regions and regions facing a brain drain;

Reducing the regulatory and administrative burden and improving market access

23.

calls upon the Commission to improve its SME test during the impact assessment of proposed regulations, in line with the ‘think small first’ principle. A good SME test includes a differentiated cost-benefit analysis for SMEs and large companies as well as between different sizes and classes of SMEs, ample opportunities for stakeholder consultation, quantification of impact and strong oversight by the Regulatory Scrutiny Board;

24.

welcomes the Commission’s initiative to develop an EU Start-up Nations Standard which has ambition to make Europe the most attractive start-up and scale-up continent. At the same time, it underlines the need to involve all levels of government in the initiative;

25.

urges the Commission to adopt a more SME-friendly approach to ensure regulatory measures function as stimuli for innovation and do not hamper the activities of SMEs, as often happens with cross-border operations. This will lead to greater resilience and competitiveness instead of additional burden and compliance costs associated with international trade. In order to encourage SMEs to start reaping the benefits of fair free trade agreements, whilst also remaining sensitive to the risk of unfair competition from exports from third countries with less stringent environmental requirements, barriers need to be reduced in innovative and cost-efficient ways, for example through web-based, interactive tools such as a Rules of Origin Calculator for SMEs, or mechanisms for identifying product emissions (such as carbon border adjustment or ‘passports’);

26.

is pleased with the continuation of regulatory fitness screening in the Fit for the Future platform. However, the role of the Committee of the Regions & SMEs needs to be enhanced compared to its predecessor, the REFIT platform. Many regulations affecting SMEs are implemented at the sub-national level and regulatory density, gold plating and issues with proportionality and subsidiarity are more visible at the bottom of the pyramid; in this regard, stresses that the Commission will also focus on removing red tape where it comes to cross-border cooperation, to make sure exchange of personnel between border regions is easily possible, also for short periods of time;

27.

calls upon the Commission to actively consult SMEs and interest groups representing a wide variety of business models, including social economy enterprises, during impact assessments and regulatory screening of EU legislation. A positive regulatory environment for social entrepreneurship will improve the survival rate of social impact start-ups, encourage social innovation and promote corporate social responsibility, bringing us closer to the realisation of the European Green Deal and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs);

28.

believes reducing barriers for SMEs related to the certification framework of the EU Cyber Security Act, including standards and technical specifications, is a necessary condition for SMEs to participate in the digital single market and for an innovative, sustainable and inclusive digital Europe that invests in data sharing and digital trust;

29.

urges the Commission to ensure the implementation of SME friendly public procurement measures proposed in the 2014 public procurement directives, including the divide or explain principle, the reduced turnover requirements and the implementation of electronic solutions such as the European Single Procurement Document and E-Certis. Calls upon the Commission to develop a roadmap for the realisation of its ‘once only’ principle in the public procurement process, thereby reducing administrative burdens and increasing transparency;

30.

underlines that local and regional authorities are actively working to improve SME access to public procurement whilst also promoting innovation and meeting societal challenges as launching customers. The city of Valladolid, the winner of a 2019 European Enterprise Promotion award, has developed a guide for SME-friendly public procurement, which can serve as an example (5);

31.

wishes to invest in cross-border collaboration for the benefit of SMEs, including the integration of labour markets, cross-border business-to-business relations and cooperation between governments, knowledge institutions and SME support centres on both sides of the border. LRAs should play a particular role in such cross-border cooperation, because they are best placed to judge which measures are appropriate to boost their local economy and can quickly identify obstacles to cross-border cooperation. The SME strategy should provide the political support for LRAs to take prompt and decisive action here;

32.

also intends to invest in interregional collaboration for SMEs and in cooperation between governments, knowledge institutions and support centres for SMEs in island and outermost regions;

33.

expects that business transfers will be an urgent challenge in the coming years due to Europe’s ageing population. In Central and Eastern Europe, specifically, a large cohort of founders started their firm after 1989 and are now ready to hand over control to the second generation;

34.

is aware of the risks during a business succession and therefore welcomes the Commission’s proposed measures on facilitating business transfer by developing a framework to support and promote business transfers across the EU;

Access to finance

35.

draws the attention to the fact that more than 60 % of SMEs are not paid on time which is one of the main causes of SME bankruptcies. Therefore calls for the proper implementation of the Late Payment Directive and welcomes the proposed monitoring and enforcement tool. It stresses that SMEs should not bear the burden of late payments by large corporations and governments;

36.

wants to stress that regional development agencies can contribute to the regional financial system, not only through participation in high-risk projects but also by securing the continuity of embedded firms, including their contribution to the human capital of a region. The European Investment Bank Group should recognise the beneficial societal impact of these embedded firms and prioritise their continuity with special equity financing instruments;

37.

welcomes the integration of funds and the simplification of procedures in the InvestEU programme. However, urges that SME accessibility to financing should not be limited to the special window for SMEs but should also be a major priority in the other three windows;

38.

worries about the debt levels of SMEs in Europe, especially of local SMEs situated in isolated and small-scale markets, such as those in the island and outermost regions. Policies aimed at improving SME access to equity financing should be strengthened at all levels of government, thereby reducing the unsustainable levels of debt financing. This concern is even greater when taking into account micro-enterprises that are unable to access financing through the financial system;

Governance

39.

underlines that regional SME strategies are the responsibility of local and regional governments in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity;

40.

takes note of a stronger mandate for the SME Envoy network to govern the EU SME policies; calls upon national envoys to increase their interaction with regional authorities and other territorial actors; suggests that annual exchanges be organised between the EU SME Envoy and CoR members to take stock of the implementation of the SME Strategy at regional and local level;

41.

stresses that pan-European, cross-border and interregional collaboration, knowledge exchange and learning are important elements of a coordinated European approach to EU policy implementation, which should be encouraged, facilitated and supported by EU programmes;

42.

calls on to the Commission to improve the horizontal coordination of the SME strategy, thereby enhancing the impact of the strategy on the allocation of the European Structural and Investment Funds in the 2021-2027 period;

43.

asks the Commission to ensure an increasing number of SMEs will benefit from EU funding, as funding for specific SME programmes such as COSME (EUR 2,3 billion in the 2014-2020 period) are modest in comparison to the European Structural and Investment Funds (EUR 460 billion). In direct and shared management programmes, such as the ERDF, regions successfully ensure the budget is programmed for the purpose of SMEs. Urges the Commission to develop specific programme lines and initiatives for SMEs in the Framework Programmes, such as Horizon Europe, and to make it easier for SMEs to access existing programmes of this kind;

44.

highlights the vital importance of the ESIF in financing the sustainability transition and points out that the Committee of the Regions has called for 30 %, rather than 25 % as currently provided for, of all funding of the Structural Funds to be earmarked for Green Deal priorities;

The road to SME recovery from COVID-19

45.

highlights that as a consequence of social distancing measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the transition of SMEs to digitalisation with a level playing field is even more urgent and crucial for their survival and for Europe’s overall strategic competitiveness;

46.

draws attention to the European Commission’s capacity to react during the pandemic by designing programmes to support SMEs and to preserve employment, such as the SURE scheme. SMEs in the agrifood, services and tourism sector, which are among those which have suffered most during the pandemic, need flexible mechanisms to enable them to survive after the crisis, as the employment rate in Europe is closely linked to the survival of these businesses;

47.

recognises the opportunities for significant progress on the sustainability transition arising from the restructuring, taking account of the size of firms and sectors affected by the crisis. This progress has to be supported with investment incentives for SMEs seizing the opportunities of green technologies and circular business models;

48.

urges the Commission to monitor whether the impact of emergency support measures does not undermine its ambition to create a level playing field for SMEs. Moreover, calls upon the Commission to review the impact of the COVID-19 crisis on the already increased levels of geopolitical instability; the disruption of trade flows and supply chains will potentially lead to the reshoring of economic activity, especially in the case of systemically important infrastructure including the medical products sector, and may offer opportunities and challenges for SMEs and regions. SMEs facing liquidity problems may be inclined to accept offers from strategic buyers, risking unwanted foreign interference in the economy;

49.

expects the Commission to act prudently when the interests of SMEs and the European economy are harmed in these areas, for example as they did by temporarily modifying the state aid rules. Local and regional authorities will remain vigilant and will continue to share information amongst each other and with higher level authorities, to enable shared learning on a proportional response to this unprecedented situation;

50.

emphasises that the Commission must be sensitive to the interests of SMEs who currently do not have strong ties with the financial system because they are largely self-financed. Some of these firms are experiencing abrupt liquidity issues and urgently need repayable and/or non-repayable loans for the first time in their existence. This primarily affects micro-enterprises, but may also impact larger family-owned enterprises;

51.

calls upon the Commission to give regional authorities access to European funding under the Recovery Package, in order to kick-start the economic recovery. Local and regional authorities are in the best position to assess the needs of SMEs adjusting to a post-pandemic economy;

52.

stresses that the goal of making businesses more financially stable and resilient should remain a top priority of policy makers at all levels; warns against the excessive reliance of proposed SME support measures on debt instruments.

---

(1)  See Annual report on European SMEs (2019).

(2)  Statistical research supported by the COSME programme has determined the share of family businesses in non-financial business in Denmark (60 %), Finland (70 %), the Netherlands (71 %) and Poland (92 %).

(3)  Based on statistics from the Netherlands, regions with higher concentrations of family businesses are close to the European average regarding GDP (Eurostat, 2017; CBS, 2017).

(4)  https://aachen.digital/

(5)  https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/promotingenterprise/files/2020/02/2020_PublicPROCUREMENTfosSME-GUIDANCEforCAuthorities.pdf